PDA

View Full Version : Vision From Feeling


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11

Jonquill
31st January 2009, 10:37 PM
I wouldn't ask if someone was a few days pregnant, most people wouldn't even know if they were, something like 'three months or less' would be better.

VisionFromFeeling
31st January 2009, 11:03 PM
UncaYimmy:
You started this thing. Be an honorable person and see it through. You have asked for time from other people. They deserve to be treated with respect. How would you react if we told you to e-mail us if there are any "important" we should have answered for you and didn't. Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered? All I said was, that since I am now skimming through the posts of this thread, if I accidentally miss a valuable question, please e-mail it to me since I do check my e-mail so that I can answer the question. Since much of what is posted here are comments or insults as well, don't e-mail me insults since that would be spam and I would block the sender's e-mail address. :(
You quoted me out of context and failed to answer my questions. You said that all the arrangements were ready. Clearly they are not. There is a very clear pattern of stalling here.If I were offered to do a study with health forms I would say that I am ready to do it now. Therefore I say that it is ready. I also realize that the study needs to be improved upon, but I say that at its current level I am ready to put it to use while expecting improvements to the procedure as we go along. There is no stalling since I state that I am ready now to have a study. That means that I would have it this very minute. And that does not constitute stalling.
* I told you that you did not need permission from the park. You insisted on getting it anyway. They told you on the phone that it was okay, but you *still* sent them a letter, delaying it even further and increases the chances of them turning you away.No. They asked me if I could send them some additional information over e-mail, so I did. I wanted to receive specific permission before going into a park and conducting an unconventional study into a paranormal claim. I seriously do not want to break any laws or regulations. Seriously. I will e-mail them once more and ask them to specify whether the study intended is permissible in itself or not, since we really only need very little space.
* It wasn't until Friday that you claimed the park "refused" you when in fact they said it was okay - they just wouldn't reserve open space or let you set up a booth. They flat out told you could reserve pavilion space to do it.I must receive specific permission that is clearly stated rather than interpreted from what they said. I will not go into a park and conduct the study and then be told that I have broken the rules and regulations and also get the FACT Skeptics in trouble. I am the organizer of this study and I also have to keep in mind those persons that I involve.
* Your skeptics who "expressed interest" haven't even been shown the protocol, much less agreed to it. They surely have been shown the protocol. I don't have feedback from them as to whether they've agreed to it yet so do not assume one way or the other as we don't know what they'll say.
* As of Friday you claimed to be "all set" yet you haven't even given your assistants a time or place. All set except for the location. Location includes time and place.
* You haven't even settled on a location, much less scoped it out in regards to the volume of people who come through. If I would have been given a variety of options for location by the Park and Recreation Department then we could have gone there and selected a location that we think is suitable once we got there.
There was no way it could have happened this weekend. It was, as we all expected, for show.It is interesting when you state things with seemingly utter belief when they are inaccurate assumptions, Jimmy. There surely was a way it could have happened this weekend. If I had received permission to conduct it in the park it would have happened this weekend one way or the other no exceptions. It was not for show. It was going to happen.
Yes. Use the protocol and questionnaire I wrote back when I was brilliant. Do not alter them. Report the raw data here. Nope. My questionnaires extract more information from the study. :hug7 And, it is a study, not a test.

Coveredinbeeees
31st January 2009, 11:04 PM
No. What I said was that this would be a case of 0% hit and 100% miss.

Ahh, my mistake. That makes things a bit more clear.

You really do need to set down some sort of failure condition if you want the study to have any chance of falsifying the claim though.

I suppose 100% miss is one condition but it can only come up in two cases.

1. The subject has an ailment you do not detect. You have already stated that you won't consider such an event as a miss.

2. You detect a severe (5) ailment in a subject who has marked N for it.

If you simply detect no severe problems during your study, real or otherwise, it will not falsify your ability.

Have you considered what you would expect a person with no paranormal ability to score in your study?

VisionFromFeeling
31st January 2009, 11:35 PM
Jonquill:
I wouldn't ask if someone was a few days pregnant, most people wouldn't even know if they were, something like 'three months or less' would be better. Thank you. You are right. This will be implemented on the third version of the study health questionnaire. By the way, let me discuss some of the changes I made from the first version (http://www.scribd.com/full/11501793?access_key=key-1wk2rhesw64zcmpl9qj6) to the second version (http://www.scribd.com/full/11525418?access_key=key-rg3um4vpzujzis1v0e5) of the health form.

Pain in "Stomach or intestines" became just pain in "Stomach" after UncaYimmy suggested (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4388996&postcount=1905) that no one really knows the definition of intestinal pain and I agree with that.

"Other pain, please write" became "Other pain, please write where" for clarity.

"Fractured bone(s) how long ago" became "Fractured bones how long ago" to look less confusing without the (s). "What bone(s)" became "What bones were they" for clarity. "Remaining discomfort after fracture, describe" became "Is there any remaining discomfort or damage after the fracture, describe" and I might change that again. "Few days" for fracture became "Recent" which is much more appropriate as the option before "Month".

"What surgeries" became "Have you had surgeries, which"

"Lasting discomfort with skeleton" was added and what it means will be better specified in the third edition. It is meant to ask for stiffness or other damage that impairs on bones and movement.

"Hands get cold" and "Feet get cold" became "Hands get cold due to circulation" and "Feet get cold due to circulation" to specify that it isn't simply just because it is cold outdoors in winter!

"Do you smoke" became "Do you smoke (when last)"

"Numbness" became "Numbness, loss of sensation" to better specify what is asked for. "Which body part numb" became "Which body part becomes numb".

"Constipation" and "Diarrhea" were removed entirely because these questions are more of a personal nature. Which frees up even more space on the health questionnaire for other ailments that I might not even have experienced before that should be tested for to see whether I might in fact detect them. For instance although I tested myself with one person who has had their tonsils removed and I didn't detect this, tonsillectomy is still on the health form just to verify that I can or can not detect whether tonsils have been removed.
:) How nice to see another white bird. :)

Coveredinbeeees:
Have you considered what you would expect a person with no paranormal ability to score in your study? Brilliant question. Skeptic-4 in my study procedure (http://www.scribd.com/full/11457234?access_key=key-1tsluedlj9v3ch91t9h7) would fill in health questionnaires along side me and is asked to try any cold reading skill that they can think of as well as guessing or any other techniques that they can think of to try to acchieve a high score by false (ie. non-paranormal) means. That should give *some* idea of what could be done by someone without this paranormal claim. Of course that is not conclusive in any way, but it is a start. In fact we could have the whole room of skeptics all try this with me and we could for instance see whether my answers stand out from the collective of everyone else's answers, how's that?

Well, I will only answer that I detected an ailment when I actually claim to perceive the ailment. If another person does the same but with some attempted cold reading skill and only marks the ailments that they think are there, then I do not expect any other person to answer that they sense removed organs, missing teeth, vasectomy, "objects" in field of vision, tinnitus, in any case for instance. And as for many of the other ailments that in many but not all cases can be difficult to detect just by looking at a person... if I do in fact have some sort of skill I would expect to have a higher frequency of such answers as well, than the persons who answer carefully who only report what they do claim to detect.

What are your thoughts on this?

Uncayimmy
31st January 2009, 11:49 PM
UncaYimmy:
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits
Yes. I did it while working a full time job. When I struggled to meet my obligations, I didn't make excuses. And I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time rewriting protocols and questionnaires I considered to be brilliant. If I did, I would have stopped when people with experience told me I was doing it wrong. Learn to manage your time.

All I said was, that since I am now skimming through the posts of this
It is disrespectful to ask people to help you and respond by "skimming" through the responses. It's even worse to tell them to wait to see if they have been ignored and demand that they contact you via private e-mail.

don't e-mail me insults since that would be spam and I would block the sender's e-mail address. :(
How insulting!

If I were offered to do a study with health forms I would say that I am ready to do it now.
Once again you have selectively quoted. Your forms are worthless and will prove nothing. You do not have any assistants committed and willing to work with you.

Your repeated evasions continue to fail.
No. They asked me if I could send them some additional information over e-mail, so I did.
Once again new facts are coming to light. You told us they said it was "ok" over the phone. You never said they requested a letter nor does your letter indicate in any way that you are responding to their request for additional information.

We talked about giving the full story the first time.

I wanted to receive specific permission before going into a park
Do you need another lecture about how repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your argument? It just wastes time.

I must receive specific permission that is clearly stated
The letter says, ""You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park."

It is interesting when you state things with seemingly utter belief when they are inaccurate assumptions, Jimmy.
My name is not Jimmy. I do not have inaccurate assumptions. I am pointing out your delusions and/or deceptions.

Nope. My questionnaires extract more information from the study. :hug7 And, it is a study, not a test.
You can say that all you want, but you're wrong. You told us if the "study reveals significant low correlation between the perception of health made by me and that made by the volunteers" it would falsify your claim. And that would mean that the "main objective of this investigation has been reached."

If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does he have? Four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't mean it's true.

Jonquill
31st January 2009, 11:50 PM
Also with your discomfort from skeleton question you have nine body parts that people can circle but only one set of 1-5 to circle. What if someone had level 1 pain in the neck but level 5 in the hips?

edit "what it means will be better specified in the third edition" Sorry missed that bit, maybe you are already on to it.


Yes, peacocks and cockatoos are both known for their horrible screams :)

JWideman
31st January 2009, 11:55 PM
Volunteer: N Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 3
Analysis: 40% H

Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis: 20% H


You have GOT to be kidding. You couldn't fail with such a scoring system if you tried.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 12:13 AM
Here's a rant that ties a number of things together. I just had to get it off my chest.

Not a single person has expressed a belief in her abilities. The only reason anyone wants a study is to prove to her that she has no abilities. Yet how has Anita twisted this?

It has been reduced to a "conceptual" study to see how her abilities work. We're gonna look at the "extent" of an ailment and the time frame, you know, so we can get a better handle what it is she is really doing. Because we know something is there, we're just trying to find out what it is. We're looking for a "rough estimate of what is going on." Of course, the study should be able to falsify her claim. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

In her open letter to FACT she says, "Let's falsify this - if we can!" So how can she get 8 hits from one person? First, she needs to pick 20 ailments and rate them as a 4 out of 5 for extent. As long as the volunteer says "No Ailment" she gets 4 hits (20% * 20). And if the volunteer picks 20 other ailments and rates them as 4, Anita need only say "No ailment detected" to get the other 4 hits (20% * 20). "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She then says it sounds ridiculous and asks what she should do, as if she hasn't already received a "brilliant" protocol or been told a dozen times by Ashles and others to drop the scale completely. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She told us the park people said no and that we "dare" not tell her that she didn't try. But in the published exchange they said yes, just that they wouldn't reserve open space or allow a booth. They explicitly suggested that she reserve a room or pavilion. "Look, I'm trying! I'm being open and honest."

When she is told what the e-mail says, she says, "Are you sure?" and offers to write yet another letter. They already told her, "You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park." Once again Anita is saying, "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She made a big stink about not involving her university, yet twice today she has put forth the idea of using students as assistants and/or volunteers. It's not like this hasn't been suggested a dozen times or more. And it's not like she has actually, you know, taken any steps. She just "might" look into it. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She tells us she had made all the arrangements, but then we learn she hasn't confirmed time, location, duration, or protocol with any of her assistants. And this was just one day before her big study was supposed to happen. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She was told repeatedly that she should do the study with the skeptics group. You remember, the one run by the guy who actually printed out the forms I created and brought them to not one, but two meetings that Anita attended. She blamed the lack of testing on them not making time, but now she's asking them to hold a special meeting just for her to review her protocol and questionnaire. This is after I told her that the more she sees and talks to these people, the less viable they are as candidates because they violate the no seeing and no talking rules. I guess she needs them because all of our suggestions suck. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

After her tantrum, she's acting all nice and giddy. She's calling people brilliant and throwing around smililes and virtual hugs. The manipulation is so transparent.

The reason she is happy is that she successfully avoided any real testing. The reason she got all worked up last week was because she painted herself in to a corner by claiming the test was really going to happen. And then she realized what she had done. So what did she do? She added the scale and time frames so there was no possible way to falsify her claim. And then she tried to make sure that the park administrators would say no. When that didn't work, she just pretended they said no. In her back pocket she had the fact that she hadn't actually confirmed that she had four assistants in her pool of six skeptics who expressed interest, much less that they were available.

Did she think we wouldn't notice? Does she think we're that dumb? Have we seen this before?

Remember back when she was all pumped about doing chemical identification tests? You know, the ones where she was told which was which after each trial with the uncovered cups? When she introduced proper controls (well, except the on about checking her guesses after each trial), she started failing. So in one sitting she removed control after control (number of cups, covers, wetting just the target) until it looked like she was doing okay. Then she stopped because it made her feel sick, but she said she wanted to try further tests. She never did because we found out later it always made her feel sick. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She was all gung ho about testing people with photographs and videos. When she finally had people to test, she failed. Then she quit doing it altogether because that wasn't her main claim. She want to concentrate on diagnosing people in person. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

When she agreed to test the crushed pills, she made a last minute request (you gotta love this) to get intact samples for comparison. She didn't. She's now spent two hours staring at them (I thought chemical identification made her sick) with zero results posted. But she'll get back to it. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

Oh, yeh! What about her survey? You know, the one at the mall where she tried to figure out what she could detect in strangers. She's gonna type up those results...eventually. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

She's spent over a year with the IIG, who "bless them," have been trying to find a way to test her. It had nothing to do with her not actually having any real claim. They finally said in effect, "Look, when you can say what it is you can do, come talk to us. Do whatever you have to do to figure it out, but this test is dead in the water." That, of course, means they are encouraging her in conducting her study. "Look at me! I'm really trying!"

And where are we now, 2,000 post later? "I consider the [not my?] paranormal claim to be falsified if the study reveals significant low correlation [I have to really suck at it] between the perception of health made by me and that made by the volunteers. I don't quite know what that would look like..." If she can do that, then the "main objective of this investigation has been reached."

So, please, everyone, let's continue to help her. Look at her! She's really trying.

Jonquill
1st February 2009, 12:31 AM
I thought it was kind of obvious that you couldn't announce on Friday that you are going to do a test in a park on Sunday and expect four helpers to be available at such short notice with the equipment needed (folding chairs and tables, pens etc). Especially since I think she said she doesn't drive and would have to rely on others to transport those things.
But maybe Anita doesn't think of practicalities like that.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 12:49 AM
Anita, on your website it says, "For instance if the study reveals that I detect a certain condition 33% of the time, and a test requires me to identify the condition 10 times, then we would need at least 30 persons with the condition for the test."

That's not at all how it would work. I challenge you to find the flaws with that I have quoted, you know, since you're a straight A student and all. Hint: It involves statistics. You don't need the proper formulas, just use words to describe what the formula(s) would tell you.

Akhenaten
1st February 2009, 01:17 AM
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!eleven!


- Sir Walter Scott


ETA: And no, I'm not going to explain !!eleventy! Get your head out of your Arcturus and do something about your naivity before it harms you any further.

Coveredinbeeees
1st February 2009, 01:41 AM
Skeptic-4 in my study procedure (http://www.scribd.com/full/11457234?access_key=key-1tsluedlj9v3ch91t9h7) would fill in health questionnaires along side me and is asked to try any cold reading skill that they can think of as well as guessing or any other techniques that they can think of to try to acchieve a high score by false (ie. non-paranormal) means. That should give *some* idea of what could be done by someone without this paranormal claim. Of course that is not conclusive in any way, but it is a start. In fact we could have the whole room of skeptics all try this with me and we could for instance see whether my answers stand out from the collective of everyone else's answers, how's that?

Having a large number of sceptics trying alongside you sounds like a good way to find a base against which to compare your own results. The question remains, to what extent would your results need to deviate from those of the sceptic group in order for you to consider further study worthwhile?

Would you accept your "score" falling within the range obtained by a group of sceptics as evidence of no paranormal ability on your part?

How would you incorporate such a control group into your study?

It is late so I hope you'll excuse me not going back through the thread to check, but I believe you mentioned a special meeting of your sceptic group happening for part of your study. If so you should consider asking some of the members to bring friends who can act as the subjects of the study while you and the group of sceptics act as viewers.

My concern is that using sceptics from the group as subjects would be complicated due to the viewers and subjects having associated in the past. Presumably everyone knows who had flu last month or an operation last year and the like, within the group.

That aside it is still a good idea to decide, before the study, how the results will be interpreted. Otherwise you leave yourself open to the construction and pursuit of a study which ultimately tells you nothing.

Well, I will only answer that I detected an ailment when I actually claim to perceive the ailment. If another person does the same but with some attempted cold reading skill and only marks the ailments that they think are there, then I do not expect any other person to answer that they sense removed organs, missing teeth, vasectomy, "objects" in field of vision, tinnitus, in any case for instance. And as for many of the other ailments that in many but not all cases can be difficult to detect just by looking at a person... if I do in fact have some sort of skill I would expect to have a higher frequency of such answers as well, than the persons who answer carefully who only report what they do claim to detect.

What are your thoughts on this?

I am not sure what you mean by higher frequency above. Do you mean to say that you expect to mark down more ailments for a given subject than the average sceptic in a group reading?

I would expect a sceptic taking part in this would be duty bound to play the odds and mark ailments they would expect the subject to have based on age and gender even if they can't tell for sure that they are present.

In any event I expect that the frequency of answers is less of a factor than the accuracy of answers.

Akhenaten
1st February 2009, 02:53 AM
What *specifically* did you tell them and what *specifically* did they say in response? I posted a link to the park regulations. There is nothing there that says you cannot do it. Nothing. You said the person on the phone said that it seemed to be okay. Why did you even send the letter in the first place?


Good questions and I hope to receive some input from the others as well as to whether I maybe could have presented it differently or perhaps designed the study differently in order to better obtain permission for a location. Phew, I just typed up a lot of recent material, here is a link (http://www.scribd.com/full/11546307?access_key=key-1311nz69jfei0a1bgi8g) to a page where I post the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation. That way you can see what was said rather than read my description of it. This should answer your question of "what *specifically* did they say in response?". I sent them the letter and written material since I was asked to provide a more detailed description of what was intended with the study.

*Note that I made the e-mail correspondence available only by assuming that the replies from Park and Recreation represent the opinions of a governmental department and not personal opinions of an individual and that therefore it should be possible to make it available.



Alleged Correspondence - Part 1 (http://www.scribd.com/full/11546307?access_key=key-1311nz69jfei0a1bgi8g)

Arranging a location for the Study
local Park and Recreation Department
written January 31 2009 by Anita Ikonen


This document posts the e-mail correspondence1 that took place between paranormal claimant2 Anita Ikonen and an employee of the local Park and Recreation Department.3 I have decided to make this material available since I think that the conduction4 of a paranormal investigation is a rare occurrence5 and can be educational for those who are interested in science, pseudoscience6 and paranormal claims. Since I assume the opinions7 of the employee of Park and Recreation to represent the ideals of that governmental department and not be of a personal nature I have decided to post our correspondence here without asking for permission from this employee or from Park and Recreation.8 This first e-mail on Thursday January 29 20099 was sent by me following a phone conversation with the Park and Recreation inquiring about having the study in a public park.10


Notes:

1. Since we all appear to be connected to the internet, we don't need to create transcripts of emails in order to divulge their contents. There is technology available which allows us to simply forward complete emails to multiple recipients. Perhaps you don't have any skeptics email addresses? Here's mine:

david@yvonneclaireadams.com

Give it a try.


2. You seem to be settling into this title, but it sucks. How about "Vibrationalist"?


3. That would be Mecklenburg Park and Recreation Department (http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Park+and+Rec/Home.htm), for any that may be curious.


4. It's "conduct". Conduction is something that physics students might learn about in regard to electricity. Maybe.


5. You are subscribed to four skeptical forums/groups that I know of, as well as your contact with Leon E. Curry, M.D (http://books.dreambook.com/sacurry/thedoctorandthepsychic.html) How do you come by a belief that paranormal investigations are a rare occurrence?


6. People given to speculating about such things might refer to the inclusion of pseudoscience as a Freudian Slip on your part. I don't know enough myself to say for sure.


7. You weren't after, and I doubt that you received, an "opinion". I find it far more likely that you received a decision based on current regulations. All shall be revealed in Upcoming episodes, I'm sure.


8. Ofuscatus Verbiosis, or the Common Prattle, as it is often referred to.


9. 48 hours notice???!eleven!11


10. If this correspondence is being published in the interest of scientifical accuracy, it should be complete. Telephone conversations DO need to be transcribed, although not necessarily verbatim, and that would have been a more logical starting place.


11. Look, there it is again :confused:



More to follow, over.

Akhenaten
1st February 2009, 03:50 AM
ETA: On the other hand, being a scientist science student, I would never engage any of my friends as participants in the study as this is (intended as) a scientific investigation. If there were a shortage of participants I would then perhaps approach my own university or other universities and engage students of science, psychology, or something else that is relevant and who I am not acquainted with. That is one option of hopefully credible participants, and they might enjoy the exercise of a paranormal investigation.







Akhenaten:
I would actually feel comfortable doing the study at my uni, however the college students are very healthy young people. If I could choose any place in the world for the study it would be at a hospital entrance or the entrance to Walgreens. :)





I'll have to re-read the thread now, because I appear to have missed a development somewhere.

Asm
1st February 2009, 05:50 AM
Hi Anita,

Just out of curiosity,

When you started this thread you seemed convinced that you had paranormal abilities. Now, a couple of thousand posts later, are you:

a) Still just as convinced?
b) Less convinced?

And secondly, the possibility that you might be suffering from a mild delusion has been suggested several times. People don't do that to be rude, but to help you. How do you react to those suggestions, do you think:

a) "I know I am not deluded"?
b) "There might be something to it"?

If you don't want to answer, that's okay. But if you do, please try to keep it simple, a) or b).

Hugs.

Ashles
1st February 2009, 06:28 AM
Ashles:
It is difficult to say at this point what kind of study results would conclude that there is no ability of accurately perceiving health information. Keep in mind that even if I appear to have an ability of accurately perceiving health information this might be a subconscious skill of cold reading, so don't you skeptics panic if this investigation shows that there is interesting accuracy.
We're not worried. As far as we are concerned, so far nothing happening here is unexpected to us.
I don't think cold reading is going to come into play here to any significant degree.
Anyway this study is agreed to be not particularly indicative of evidence towards a paranormal ability by your own agreement.

I have not been verified incorrect a single time yet so I don't know.
Everyone else disagrees with you on this point hence the need to agree parameters.

Is it ridiculous to say "let's just wait and see what happens?"
In any experiment that purports to be run scientifically... yes.

Perhaps I should discuss this with Dr. Eric Carlson. He is a brilliant scientist and perhaps it is something I as the claimant am unable to decide on myself.
What difference does that make? You declared UncaYimmy a "brilliant skeptic" yet you still refused to use his protocol. He may will give you excellent advice but if, as you have continually done, you ignore it then what is the point of asking?

It is a difficult question, Ashles! Do you have a suggestion? Please suggest? :o
I do have a suggestion. Please run this by Eric Carlson if necessary.

This stage of analysis is to solely to mark the results and falsify the likelihood of any ability (paranormal or cold reading):

You have stated yourelf you consider a score of 2 to be "insignificant" and "not really an answer" so we will accept your definition of this for this analysis.

Thus we will ignore ANY instances in which you have marked N, 1 or 2, NO MATTER WHAT the volunteer has put.
This is sensible for 2 reasons - Firstly it removes all the instances where you see no ailment - This is not at this stage a sensible measure of your ability because it is the default position that anyone would have i.e. no ability present.
The majority of correct results (which anyone could get by putting N to everything) would be No ailment detected, No ailment present. So we remove them (at this stage) as not useful.
Also it helps you because if you write down N and the subject actually puts a 5 (or anything indicating an ailment) it will still not be counted.
We are considering such results as ailments you are unable to identify which was one of the goals of this study.

So ths leaves us with your relatively strong results: 3, 4, 5.
(Remember this is all only for reaching a conclusion of Non-Ability - we are not using this for anything else).

We will look at your results marked 3, 4 or 5 and mark only those.
Anything that you mark a 3 and the volunteer marks as a 1 will be deemed Undetermined. We will also discard these results.

So if you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the Volunteer puts down 2, 3, 4, or 5 we will, for the purposes of this, consider those Hits.
If you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the volunteer puts down a N we will consider this a Miss.

Now bear in mind such a method of marking is very skewed in your favour.

Taking such results I would personally say that a ratio of Misses to Hits of less than 1:5 would be enough to indicate a Non-Ability.

I think that is very fair as, bearing in mind the extraordinary level of accuracy you have so far claimed, and the amazing level of detail and range you claim your 'ability' to have, you should, even on a bad day, be ble to perform far above that.
And your scores of 3, 4 or 5 should be considered that you definitely feel you are perceiving something with your ability.

Please take that to Dr Carlson. And comments obviously from all other posters here are welcome.

Bear in mind this is not the part of the analysis designed to analyse relative ailment detection strength - I will get to that later.

Also bear in mind you are refusing to use ANY test protocol we are suggesting so we are making these comments about YOUR test protocol which you already agree is flawed.

Now I am convinced your instant reaction on reading that is to reject it. Already you are thinking of how it can be modified, how can we remove the word 'Miss' from it, how can you generate an argument to disagree with the assumptions made...
But I would ask you to pause a moment and really think about why you are instantly rejecting it.

If you feel my suggested ratio is incorrect, say so - suggest one of your own.
If you have improvements, be specific.
If you reject it completely, have a falsification scenario of your own to replace it with.

But, in all fairness, I see absolutely no reason why you would not accept this method of judging as a fair indicator of no-ability.
It is very much in your favour and far more generous than a real test will be.

Even with the detailed permutation list I gave you and a chance to define reults as Hits or Misses, you still redefined everything as a percentage chance of a Hit. Misses as a concept were totally removed.

As a science student it is genuinely bafling to me that after three years you cannot formulate a falsification scenario from this test.
If you reject mine you must come up with something yourself - otherwise you must remove that stated goal from the list of objectives.
If you refuse all of our suggestions and can't come up with any of your own it simply will not be a test that has any chance of falsifying any claim.

You just cannot in any even vaguely scientific test, decide to come up with a falsification scenario after you get the results.

Ashles
1st February 2009, 06:56 AM
I resent that. I will be a brilliant scientist
A little tip - writing like that is a little embarassing for you. You cannot tell people you will be a brilliant scientist, you have to behave in ways that convince them of that. You currently have not.

and the fact that I've conducted a scientific investigation into an interesting experience, even if an unconventional subject, does not take away from my skills as a scientist.
The fact that you have not in any way used proper scientific rigour, have not created a workable protocol, have actively refused to use tight protocols and have replaced them with inferior ones, have broken your own protocols, ignored undesirable results, have no method of data analysis, and cannot so far come up with a method of falsification...those take away from your "skills as a scientist".

Besides I am one of those few who actually want to touch unconventional research topics.
There are thousands of amateurs who unscientifically look at exciting and paranormal topics. None of them have ever come up with anything. You are certainly not part of a 'few' there.

Actual scientists (those with degrees, research papers, some experience of their subject, peer review, respect etc.) are much thinner on the ground in this area because it has already been so extensively and fruitlessly researched.
I'll leave it to others to exaplain the story behind Mr. Emoto (which, yes, we are long aware of)

Most scientists and science students I spoke to about Mr. Emoto's claim were appalled by such an unconventional and "clearly nonsensical" claim without really being certain that the claim would be false, whereas I am willing to spend some of my time as a scientist to actually show that such a claim is not possible and to then perhaps come up with a reason as to why before concluding about it.

Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_control),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#cite_note-2) and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#cite_note-3) In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#cite_note-4)
In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#cite_note-5) Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#cite_note-6) and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto#cite_note-7)

Interesting that your first instinct to get backup for your scientific position is to go to another non-scientist who makes paranormal claims who also leaves his experiments open to interpretation.
As a scientist you should moving away from such clealry inconclusive research and towards stricter scientific protocols.

In my teens I was interested in some of the concepts of New Age or "pseudoscience" and am now getting a real education in conventional science. Some pseudoscientific claims are not touched by scientists.
Like what?

I intend to be one of the brave scientists who is willing to put her reputation in line to look into unconventional claims or hypotheses that relate to my field of study.
And yet you have the opportunity to start that brave stance even as a student, yet constantly shy away from it by refusing to run tests at your own Uni?
In fact this directly contradicts your earlier claims that you don't want asociation with the paranormal to endanger your career..

If a woo comes up with some strange claims about some electronic instrument or healing powers then I can be one to objectively consider their claim
Unfortunately not based on current evidence.
Some of the worst work in these fields have been caried out when individuals claiming paranormal ability have been 'tested' by those who also want to believe.

and perhaps even devote some of my own spare time and resources to find a way to prove and explain why their claims are flawed.
But so far you can't fix the flaws you identify in your own studies!

[uote]If my involvement in this seems to hurt my reputation to some, then so be it.[/quote]
This is again a different stance from before.

I think it strengthens me as a scientist,
I hate to have to remind you again but, you are not a scientist.

and strengthens science as a whole. Why simply tell a paranormal claimant that they are wrong, when it is possible to look into it, to dedicate some of your time and expertise, and show them why it doesn't work? I will be one of those persons.
We already are those persons.
We always encourage experimentation to look into it.
But the clamant has to take some responsibility and be open to the idea of being incorrect.

I seriously doubt that this paranormal investigation would hurt my reputation or career. This is an interesting exercise of the scientific method on a high school- or undergraduate level. I might even put it on my resume. And who knows, after I falsify my claim I might turn into a skeptic who tests paranormal claimants and claims, and that is something to put on a resume.
To be honest, at the moment all the work being done to actually generate a strict protocol and any falsification methodology ought to be going on our CVs not yours.

Please, please work on developing a decent and agreed protocol before going off on these flights of fancy about how you will become one of the world's leading paranormal investigators. All that talk simply detracts from your credibility.
You want us to concentrate on talking about the study - you should too.

It seems like you are taking this study and 'ability' to be already assumed and simply the first stepping stone onto an inevitable and exciting career.
But that first stepping stone may not really be there.

Moochie
1st February 2009, 07:05 AM
Anita, I don't understand how to fill out your form when it comes to the time periods.

I am nauseous right now.

<snip>



Was it something you read?


M.

Ashles
1st February 2009, 07:11 AM
Ashles:
Is that like a response-nonsense? ;)
Well, if I make a single one particular claimed perception that strongly disagrees with the verified health of a person then that alone is reason to make me doubt the claim. If I make several inaccurate perceptions then each would add to my doubts and eventually I would realize that there is no ability.
We don't like 'eventually'.
'Eventually' is when the mall survey will be detailed. 'Eventually' as not a word we want in scientific protocols.
We need numbers.

I really need someone else to define when the claim would be falsified by the study, as I have no clear answer.
You say that but if anyone else suggests it you will reject it.
Define it yourself.

All I know is that the study should be able to falsify a non-ability whether I have a clear idea of what that would require, or not. :confused: *unscientific* :o
The study simply cannot. It must be defined beforhand.
Otherwise we end up with another interpretation disagreement.
All appearances indicate you are incapable of falsifying your own ability.

The only way you can alter that perception is by coming up with your own or accepting someone else's (e.g. mine above)

I just don't know at this point. I really need to discuss this with others. :o
Out of interest who? Do you accept their suggestios?

skeen
1st February 2009, 08:01 AM
It's hilarious how drawn out testing has become. In the beginning of this thread, it seemed like a simple ability - she can see through people, better than an x-ray. Now Anita is hoping to use probability and chance to her advantage.

A proper test is never going to happen. Even if we get to a point where Anita has agreed to do as we have suggested, she will change it when the test is to take place. She has already done this, deeming the entire process useless.

And Anita, don't use the term "scientist" to describe yourself, even if you're going to cross it out. You are the least Scientific person I have ever come across. Just because you take a class, and memorize things, doesn't make you a Scientist. You are an irrational woo, the exact opposite of a Scientist. Thank you. :):):):)

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 08:12 AM
It's hilarious how drawn out testing has become. In the beginning of this thread, it seemed like a simple ability - she can see through people, better than an x-ray. Now Anita is hoping to use probability and chance to her advantage.

A proper test is never going to happen. Even if we get to a point where Anita has agreed to do as we have suggested, she will change it when the test is to take place. She has already done this, deeming the entire process useless.

And Anita, don't use the term "scientist" to describe yourself, even if you're going to cross it out. You are the least Scientific person I have ever come across. Just because you take a class, and memorize things, doesn't make you a Scientist. You are an irrational woo, the exact opposite of a Scientist. Thank you. :):):):)


I kinda disagree with you on that one. ( as I have said upthread) I dont see her as irrational or a woo. I see her as skillfully and willfully deceptive ( she has to have some level of understanding what legitimate science is in order to know how to skirt around it and not get caught in her own trap)

Its also apparent and obvious that she KNOWS her ability is bunk ( to me thats not wooish- thats an out and out scam) otherwise she would have full faith/belief in her "ability" and would meet the tests head on then back engineer reasons/excuses for failing.

Its been my experience in interrogating suspects/witnesses that "the truth" is usually a short direct answer. ( theres no reason for 1000+ words to say I did or didnt do it) When a suspect starts "waffling"- thats a direct indicator of deception. They are no longer "telling" but "selling".

My only question at this point is what is the REAL motivation and goal.

Locknar
1st February 2009, 08:17 AM
It's hilarious how drawn out testing has become. In the beginning of this thread, it seemed like a simple ability - she can see through people, better than an x-ray. Now Anita is hoping to use probability and chance to her advantage.

A proper test is never going to happen. Even if we get to a point where Anita has agreed to do as we have suggested, she will change it when the test is to take place. She has already done this, deeming the entire process useless.
Agreed


And Anita, don't use the term "scientist" to describe yourself, even if you're going to cross it out. You are the least Scientific person I have ever come across. Just because you take a class, and memorize things, doesn't make you a Scientist. You are an irrational woo, the exact opposite of a Scientist. Thank you. :):):):)Well...I would say more like someone playing scientist. That is to say, someone that has watched one to many episodes of CSI (for example) and acting the way that TV shows scientists acting.

Of course no credible test will ever happen. Tests will be overly complicated (to allow many outs), results vague enough to count anything as a hit, etc.

Sideroxylon
1st February 2009, 08:40 AM
Agreed

Well...I would say more like someone playing scientist. That is to say, someone that has watched one to many episodes of CSI (for example) and acting the way that TV shows scientists acting.

Of course no credible test will ever happen. Tests will be overly complicated (to allow many outs), results vague enough to count anything as a hit, etc.


What you say reminds me of the following quote by Richard Feynman:

In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school -- we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty -- a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -- not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked -- to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Anita, I recommend that you read the rest of it or better still get the book.

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

desertgal
1st February 2009, 08:43 AM
Its been my experience in interrogating suspects/witnesses that "the truth" is usually a short direct answer. ( theres no reason for 1000+ words to say I did or didnt do it) When a suspect starts "waffling"- thats a direct indicator of deception. They are no longer "telling" but "selling".


Lex parsimoniae. Ockham's Razor. K.I.S.S. Take your pick of principles, VfF, and try applying one when you write. It would be far more convincing in 'selling' your claim(s). :rolleyes:

The gentleman from the Parks Dept. has clearly given her permission to reserve a pavilion - but, of course, she will now stall with writing yet another detailed letter to him asking, again, if there is any reason why her 'study' cannot go forward in a public area in Charlotte. Chances are she'll throw in that unrelated question about advertising, too. Meanwhile, she'll come back here and tell us, again, that the 'study' could and would have gone forward if she had only received permission. :rolleyes:

Yes, Anita, we are sure that people within our borders have the right to peacefully assemble. It is specifically stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of assembly is also protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 21; and the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 15.

Which would have taken her two seconds to look up herself, if she was so concerned that she might be breaking the law. There are 21,900,000 results for "The First Amendment (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS263&q=The+First+Amendment&btnG=Search)", 920,000 for "peaceful assembly (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS263&=&q=The+First+Amendment&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f)", 36,500,000 for "The Bill of Rights (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS263&q=peaceful+assembly&btnG=Search)", and 16,300,000 for "US Constitution (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS263&q=The+Bill+of+Rights&btnG=Search)" on Google alone. I'm sure even Anita could have found the answer to her concern among all those.

Funny that bending the law by 'diagnosing' people without benefit of a medical education or license never seems to concern her in the slightest, though. :rolleyes:

My only question at this point is what is the REAL motivation and goal.

Oh, let me.

If you believe she is delusional, then she is here to: prolong the delusion(s), garner attention, and establish a place for herself in the woo economy.

If you believe she is scamming, then she is here to: sell her "ability" to the hardest audience so she can garner attention and establish a place for herself in the woo economy.

She's actually lucky that so many people here believe she is delusional. If we all believed she was cold bloodedly scamming, we all would have done what Jackalgirl did and written Anita off on page two.

skeen
1st February 2009, 09:07 AM
I also have to add, to those helping her: Yimmy put in a lot of effort. What was Anita's excuse for not using his protocol? "Thanks but I like mine better. :)" That is, a protocol to which no-one has agreed would yield any useful results.

I just hate to see people wasting their time. Even if Anita is an outright liar, and not just a woo, has she not already been exposed? To any normal, rational person, her apologetics and waffling are utterly unconvincing.

It doesn't matter to Anita how silly she sounds. She sees ghosts, and is a star-person of some sort. She is interested in all things woo, from crystals to quantum jargon. There's nothing more that she can do to embarrass herself further.

Sideroxylon
1st February 2009, 09:14 AM
It doesn't matter to Anita how silly she sounds. She sees ghosts, and is a star-person of some sort. She is interested in all things woo, from crystals to quantum jargon. There's nothing more that she can do to embarrass herself further.

I thought this thread jumped the shark ages ago but she still manages to surprise occasionally.

skeen
1st February 2009, 09:17 AM
I thought this thread jumped the shark ages ago but she still manages to surprise occasionally.
You're right, but knowing you're going to be surprised is unsurprising!

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 11:04 AM
UncaYimmy is in a grumpy mood today...
UncaYimmy:
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits
Yes. I did it while working a full time job. When I struggled to meet my obligations, I didn't make excuses. And I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time rewriting protocols and questionnaires I considered to be brilliant. If I did, I would have stopped when people with experience told me I was doing it wrong. Learn to manage your time.No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered?" There is a difference. You put a lot more work into it if you get A's than B's or just C's. And it also depends on what classes they are. So we are probably not in the same situation. I do manage my time: by prioritizing my studies. There.
It is disrespectful to ask people to help you and respond by "skimming" through the responses. It's even worse to tell them to wait to see if they have been ignored and demand that they contact you via private e-mail.Not at all. I said that I read here but when someone's post starts to look like just a bunch of insults without any productive comments or constructive criticism I kind of skip those now. So, in case I miss an important question, do let me know. No one has to contact me by e-mail. It was just a suggestion. You don't know how busy I am.
don't e-mail me insults since that would be spam and I would block the sender's e-mail address
How insulting!Excuse me? So you expect me to welcome insulting e-mails that are full of personal attacks into my e-mail account and sit and read all of them very carefully? Don't be pathetic, UncaYimmy. I am by no means obliged to read some of the type of comments posted here. :rolleyes:
Once again you have selectively quoted. Your forms are worthless and will prove nothing. You do not have any assistants committed and willing to work with you.My aren't we grumpy today. My forms are excellent. They are just as good as yours but include even more information. The forms are not meant to prove anything, as I have said it is a study not a test. The study will be informative though, and that is the intent. And hopefully based on that learned information the claim will be falsified or a test can be made. I have six skeptics willing to participate. Their participation would not exactly be difficult. All that I ask is that one holds on to the volunteer's forms and at the end of the study takes part in matching the forms. A second takes the next volunteer to be seen by me so that I am not in the area where all the volunteers are so that I don't see them before viewing them. A third holds on to the claimant's forms and the skeptic's forms and takes part in the matching as well. And a fourth tries to do what I do. These are not exactly complicated assignments. If I were complaining like you are now you would say that I am trying to make excuses, that I am trying to stall the progress and that I am deluded and a liar and that I am afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is. So, how is it UncaYimmy? Are you trying to make excuses? Are you trying to stall the progress? Are you deluded and a liar? And are you afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is? :)
Once again new facts are coming to light. You told us they said it was "ok" over the phone. You never said they requested a letter nor does your letter indicate in any way that you are responding to their request for additional information.They really did request more material over the phone. They said that it seemed ok but they would like to know more about it. That's right I didn't mention this to them in the first e-mail to them, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen like that. Could we stop arguing about the less important aspects and realize that I am in fact trying to arrange a location for the study?
We talked about giving the full story the first time. I couldn't possibly write down my entire phone conversation with a person or include all the details like you are asking me to do. This is not some police investigation concerning a crime. We will judge the paranormal claim based on the end results of a study or a test and not on all the circumstances leading to that point. You are making me exhausted.
Do you need another lecture about how repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your argument? It just wastes time. Well grumpy man I repeat myself when people ask the same questions and when they didn't seem to understand my answer the first time.
My name is not Jimmy. I do not have inaccurate assumptions. I am pointing out your delusions and/or deceptions.No, you are pointing out your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. :confused:

Jonquill:
Also with your discomfort from skeleton question you have nine body parts that people can circle but only one set of 1-5 to circle. What if someone had level 1 pain in the neck but level 5 in the hips?Yes, additional extent rows will be added but I have to work that in.
edit "what it means will be better specified in the third edition" Sorry missed that bit, maybe you are already on to it.Yes, I was going to add more to it but thanks for noticing it too. :)

JWideman:
You have GOT to be kidding. You couldn't fail with such a scoring system if you tried. It was just a suggestion and I know it is a bad one. I just don't know how to construct a point scale system for the study health questionnaires. Do you have any suggestions how to interpret the results?

desertgal
1st February 2009, 11:21 AM
UncaYimmy:
No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered?" There is a difference. You put a lot more work into it if you get A's than B's or just C's. And it also depends on what classes they are. So we are probably not in the same situation.

Snort. :rolleyes:

Don't be pathetic, UncaYimmy.

Oh, look. Anita assimilated a new word. :rolleyes:

And are you afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is? :)

It already has been exposed for what it is. A delusion. A lie. A scam. Take your pick.

No, you are pointing out your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. :confused:

Classic woo mantra: "It's not ME. It's YOU."

nathan
1st February 2009, 11:21 AM
No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered?"
I'm sorry, I thought you said you were studying science in Charlotte. I'm sure Charlotte has perfectly fine science courses. But I am unaware of Charlotte ranking high in the hardest science course table -- places in the US like Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard and MIT come to mind.

I'd also like to know how many credits/year US undergradute courses require. I thought it was 120, not 16. Perhaps there's some scale factor I'm unaware of.

Professor Yaffle
1st February 2009, 11:23 AM
It was just a suggestion and I know it is a bad one. I just don't know how to construct a point scale system for the study health questionnaires. Do you have any suggestions how to interpret the results?

You should always take into account how you are going to analyse the results while you are designing a questionnaire/form/study etc. You should never just design a form the way that you like and then worry about how to analyse it later.

That is why the following quote is incorrect. And it is arrogant of you to make such a statement when you admittedy know so little about the proper design and analysis of a study such as this.

My forms are excellent. They are just as good as yours but include even more information.

Moochie
1st February 2009, 11:45 AM
I kinda disagree with you on that one. ( as I have said upthread) I dont see her as irrational or a woo. I see her as skillfully and willfully deceptive ( she has to have some level of understanding what legitimate science is in order to know how to skirt around it and not get caught in her own trap)

Its also apparent and obvious that she KNOWS her ability is bunk ( to me thats not wooish- thats an out and out scam) otherwise she would have full faith/belief in her "ability" and would meet the tests head on then back engineer reasons/excuses for failing.

Its been my experience in interrogating suspects/witnesses that "the truth" is usually a short direct answer. ( theres no reason for 1000+ words to say I did or didnt do it) When a suspect starts "waffling"- thats a direct indicator of deception. They are no longer "telling" but "selling".

My only question at this point is what is the REAL motivation and goal.


Pretty much my take on this, too. As to the highlighted sentence, I think most of us are able to make some educated guesses. :)


M.

TheSkepticCanuck
1st February 2009, 11:53 AM
I'm sorry, I thought you said you were studying science in Charlotte. I'm sure Charlotte has perfectly fine science courses. But I am unaware of Charlotte ranking high in the hardest science course table -- places in the US like Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard and MIT come to mind.

I'd also like to know how many credits/year US undergradute courses require. I thought it was 120, not 16. Perhaps there's some scale factor I'm unaware of.

I may be incorrect in my interpretation, but I interpreted her to mean that she believes that her science courses are among the hardest available at UNCC, not necessarily in all the US or the entire world.

Moochie
1st February 2009, 11:55 AM
I also have to add, to those helping her: Yimmy put in a lot of effort. What was Anita's excuse for not using his protocol? "Thanks but I like mine better. :)" That is, a protocol to which no-one has agreed would yield any useful results.

I just hate to see people wasting their time. Even if Anita is an outright liar, and not just a woo, has she not already been exposed? To any normal, rational person, her apologetics and waffling are utterly unconvincing.

It doesn't matter to Anita how silly she sounds. She sees ghosts, and is a star-person of some sort. She is interested in all things woo, from crystals to quantum jargon. There's nothing more that she can do to embarrass herself further.


Oh, give her time. Give her time. :)


M.

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 12:02 PM
Pretty much my take on this, too. As to the highlighted sentence, I think most of us are able to make some educated guesses. :)


M.

I'm kinda sitting on 3 at the moment ( but always open to change)

1) self adulation or feeding a need for attention

2) some kind of "name recognition" ( which if done properly could help jumpstart a career)

3) Profit ( writing the next round of woo books, infomercials and such)

I came up with those more by the process of elimination.

She came here and started it. ( motivation and carrying it on this long and on other boards as well indicates this is a dedicated and deliberate effort on her part. This implies a methodology and end goal)

I rule out her holding a legitimate belief in her "ability" because those that truly "believe" in themselves dont fear the test because they believe they are "real". She has done too much shucking and jiving,ducking and weaving and 'rope-a-dope" for me to accept that she herself "believes" her "abilities" are authentic.

I rule out all things "scientific" because she has demonstrated a working knowledge of legitimate scientific method at a level enough to weave around all points that science would accept and is deliberately inserting tests and excuses that she knows will bog it down or couch the results in ambiguity that she can hide in.

I think its ego feeding, career springboarding ( controversy can and often does create cash) or the next major woo product for free marketing.

GeeMack
1st February 2009, 12:10 PM
Either Anita can acquire information about other people's medical conditions by some sort of extra-sensory ability, or she can't.

If she can, she is wholly incapable of convincing another single soul that it might be true. Perhaps everyone else in this discussion has sub-par communication skills... or Anita has. Or possibly she's just too stupid to understand and to make herself understood.

If she can't acquire medical information by extra-sensory perception, she either believes she can, or she knows she can't. If she believes she can, she's deluded, a victim of some kind of serious mental health disorder. If she knows she can't, she's a liar.

So, Anita, whether you have any extra-sensory ability or not, you're either one seriously crappy communicator, or you're simply too stupid to realize what's going on here, or you have a serious mental health problem, or you're a just a flat out liar.

Which do you think it is?

ETA...

I rule out her holding a legitimate belief in her "ability" because those that truly "believe" in themselves dont fear the test because they believe they are "real". She has done too much shucking and jiving,ducking and weaving and 'rope-a-dope" for me to accept that she herself "believes" her "abilities" are authentic.


I agree. And setting aside motivation for the moment, that would make her mentally ill or a liar.

JWideman
1st February 2009, 12:14 PM
It was just a suggestion and I know it is a bad one. I just don't know how to construct a point scale system for the study health questionnaires. Do you have any suggestions how to interpret the results?

Sure. Anything but an exact match is a miss.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 12:16 PM
UncaYimmy:
Not a single person has expressed a belief in her abilities. The only reason anyone wants a study is to prove to her that she has no abilities. Yet how has Anita twisted this?I am working on falsifying a non-ability or proving a paranormal ability which ever it may be. I have repeatedly failed to falsify my paranormal claim on my own which is why I need the assistance of skeptics. Not because I'd be deluded or because I'd be interpreting the results in favor of an ability, but because of compelling apparent accuracy and not a single case of inaccuracy. I for one think this is exciting.

The scale will stay on the health forms. It will help to establish to what extent an ailment must be perceived by the volunteer in order for me to perceive it. And that will be very helpful toward selecting volunteers with ailments for a test.

For scoring the study I will leave it to the discretion of the FACT Skeptics to disregard the when and extent columns entirely if they feel that that is the most appropriate for extracting some results from the study. I however am curious. I am not only trying to find out whether there is a paranormal ability, a cold reading ability, or no ability in acchieving accurate health information, I also want to find out more in general about what it is capable of. Also I could draw conclusions which I could add to make a more specific claim regarding what I think I can and can not do.
She told us the park people said no and that we "dare" not tell her that she didn't try. But in the published exchange they said yes, just that they wouldn't reserve open space or allow a booth. They explicitly suggested that she reserve a room or pavilion. If you read the first response from Park and Recreation (http://www.scribd.com/full/11546307?access_key=key-1311nz69jfei0a1bgi8g),

"Anita: I have reviewed the information and we are not going to permit this in a park setting. I wish you the best in this endeavor. It sounds very interesting."

how can you argue when I interpret this e-mail that we are not allowed to have the study in the park? The next e-mail response arrived later that evening,

"you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park. You would need to contact the city of charlotte about streets and sidewalks, but my guess is they will not permit it either."

So at this point I did not have a clear message that would tell me that it IS permissible to conduct the study in a park. Forgive me if I do not want to try to "interpret" their words to make it lean in my favor. What I want is a clear yes before I take me and "my crew" to the park because I am the organizer of this event and if me and my FACT Skeptics get in trouble because of me, I just won't let that happen. No one who is respectable arranges an event and involves other people in it without having specific permission to use the location. So therefore I am writing another e-mail to Park and Recreation where I specify that we only need very little space and ask for a more clear answer as to whether the study can be held. I will also contact the city of Charlotte to ask whether we could have the study at the public street.

I know that we are all eager to produce some sort of results to proceed in this investigation, but that will not make me do this in a careless manner that would end up harming myself, my participants, or the volunteers involved.
She made a big stink about not involving her university, yet twice today she has put forth the idea of using students as assistants and/or volunteers. It's not like this hasn't been suggested a dozen times or more. And it's not like she has actually, you know, taken any steps. She just "might" look into it. I am naturally going to be careful if involving my university in this unconventional paranormal investigation. Maybe those of you who attended college and took it to the Ph.D. level as I will can relate to this. Now that my study is designed and I have spoken about it with persons such as with Park and Recreation and begun to feel that perhaps it is not as bad as it could have been, I feel better about involving people in it. Only now that I feel more confident about this investigation do I consider the involvement of students to be an option. Still I would not involve professors or involve any of the university itself in my investigation.
She was told repeatedly that she should do the study with the skeptics group. You remember, the one run by the guy who actually printed out the forms I created and brought them to not one, but two meetings that Anita attended. She blamed the lack of testing on them not making time, but now she's asking them to hold a special meeting just for her to review her protocol and questionnaire. This is after I told her that the more she sees and talks to these people, the less viable they are as candidates because they violate the no seeing and no talking rules. I guess she needs them because all of our suggestions suck. I was not going to use the local skeptics as volunteers until I was ready with the design of the study and with my health forms. The local skeptics are going to be the most valuable volunteers I can find so I do not intend to waste that by using health forms that are not as good as mine or until I have thoroughly thought about what I want to learn with the study. I have sent an e-mail (http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/5095237/) to the local skeptics group asking for an extra meeting this month of February for me to have the study with the skeptics as volunteers. I suggested Saturday February 7. Oh UncaYimmy, stop nagging.
After her tantrum, she's acting all nice and giddy. She's calling people brilliant and throwing around smililes and virtual hugs. The manipulation is so transparent.I do put my foot down if you guys go overboard with the nonsensical insults and unfounded criticism that strays away from the investigation. However I always remain as friendly and delightful throughout everything, whereas some of you guys are showing some grumpy attitude. :confused:
The reason she is happy is that she successfully avoided any real testing. The reason she got all worked up last week was because she painted herself in to a corner by claiming the test was really going to happen. And then she realized what she had done. So what did she do? She added the scale and time frames so there was no possible way to falsify her claim. And then she tried to make sure that the park administrators would say no. When that didn't work, she just pretended they said no. In her back pocket she had the fact that she hadn't actually confirmed that she had four assistants in her pool of six skeptics who expressed interest, much less that they were available. UncaYimmy, it is unscientific of you to state your assumptions as established facts in which you hold belief. It is better to adopt a more humble form of presenting your ideas where you reserve the possibility that your ideas just might not conform with reality after all. "The reason she is happy is that she successfully avoided any real testing." is entirely untrue, yet you believe in it. That shows to me at least that you are not always going to be a reliable source and that what you say must be inspected carefully. The reason I am happy is because I just might have a study with the skeptics as the volunteers this Saturday and because there are still hopes that I can hold the study with the public as volunteers after all, and I am finally approaching making progress in my investigation. And that is why I am happy. :) :) :)

The now and extent columns can be entirely disregarded by the FACT Skeptics if they want to interpret the results of the study. As I have clearly stated and as you have clearly disregarded the now and extent columns are for educational purposes. I want to understand how recent and how strong ailments I am able to claim to perceive. I do need this knowledge in order to make a more specific paranormal claim by which a test would be designed.

I did not intend for Park and Recreation to say no. As a scientist science student you do not request a facility to reserve you laboratory space and tell them that you just want to do some simple and safe experiments all the while withholding the information that your experiments could be potentially explosive or leave toxic chemical fumes in the facility. You are required to present the procedure in full. My investigation involves other people and their health information and I consider myself to be fully required to ensure that my investigation is in accordance with law and harmless to those who participate. I will not be ridiculed by you for choosing not to withhold crucial information, information that does need to be known by the management and does need approval. These are my morals and my principles. If you do not like it, so what. :)

I did not receive a clear yes from Park and Recreation. The first e-mail from them did imply that the study itself is not permissible. The second e-mail seemed to imply that the study itself was permissible but that the problem was in reserving space. Due to these seemingly contradictory statements I need to contact them again and ask them to clarify. As a scientist science student the words and statements that you work by may not be interpreted by you in your favor. You do not misinterpret a statement and then say "oh, I did this wrong, it's because I didn't understand what you said". Science is written very clearly and specificly and in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation or miscommunication. *I'm just trying to be a delightful little science munchkin (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4288854&postcount=756).* ;)

Six skeptics had said that they were available for the study this weekend. We could have done with fewer if we had to. I just really wanted to get started asap, and I would have made it work. But I will not use a location without specific consent to do so.
Did she think we wouldn't notice? Does she think we're that dumb? Have we seen this before?You are just being ridiculous. I will not use a facility or space for an event of a controversial and possibly disturbing kind without permission to do so. You can think what you like, UncaYimmy. But I do not break the rules. I don't care if this delayed the study, of course I am disappointed that it did. The study will take place and a location will be found.
Remember back when she was all pumped about doing chemical identification tests? You know, the ones where she was told which was which after each trial with the uncovered cups? When she introduced proper controls (well, except the on about checking her guesses after each trial), she started failing. So in one sitting she removed control after control (number of cups, covers, wetting just the target) until it looked like she was doing okay. Then she stopped because it made her feel sick, but she said she wanted to try further tests. She never did because we found out later it always made her feel sick. The chemical identification tests give me a serious headache and nausea because these kind of perceptions occur very infrequently so when I force myself to have them repeatedly over a short period of time it is an extensive effort. When it comes to medical perceptions I have more experience and more frequent perceptions and I have never experienced the same difficulties. Besides I was getting 9 out of 10 correct in the chemical identification tests. And it is not my main claim that I am investigating.
She was all gung ho about testing people with photographs and videos. When she finally had people to test, she failed. Then she quit doing it altogether because that wasn't her main claim. She want to concentrate on diagnosing people in person. No, you guys insisted that I try and I did to satisfy everyone's curiosity including mine. I have never claimed to perceive from pictures transmitted over the internet. That's like if a guy claims to be a really good marathon runner and you read their resume where they say that yeah sometimes they also do biking and swimming just to keep their strength up and you don't want to bother setting up a run track so you ask that they swim across the English Channel. You sillies. What I have experienced with the other aspects of the perceptions have never been frequent enough or compelling enough for me to form a paranormal claim based on them or to put them through a scientific investigation.
When she agreed to test the crushed pills, she made a last minute request (you gotta love this) to get intact samples for comparison. She didn't. She's now spent two hours staring at them (I thought chemical identification made her sick) with zero results posted. But she'll get back to it. Asking a chemist to take the final exams in business economics isn't exactly very clever even though they said that they know some math.
Oh, yeh! What about her survey? You know, the one at the mall where she tried to figure out what she could detect in strangers. She's gonna type up those results...eventually. Alright UncaYimmy! Send me your mailing address right this instant and I will mail you photocopies of my notes from the survey! Then you can type them up for me will ya! It'll be a lot of work, meanwhile I am focusing on the study. Should keep you busy for a while. :rolleyes:

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 12:16 PM
If I were complaining like you are now you would say that I am trying to make excuses, that I am trying to stall the progress and that I am deluded and a liar and that I am afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is. So, how is it UncaYimmy? Are you trying to make excuses? Are you trying to stall the progress? Are you deluded and a liar? And are you afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is? :)


Pot, meet Kettle

Your obfuscations remind me of a former NC Prosecutor who tried to prosecute 3 innocent lax players for the "rape that wasnt" to feed a personal agenda.

desertgal
1st February 2009, 12:21 PM
I rule out her holding a legitimate belief in her "ability" because those that truly "believe" in themselves dont fear the test because they believe they are "real". She has done too much shucking and jiving,ducking and weaving and 'rope-a-dope" for me to accept that she herself "believes" her "abilities" are authentic.


In fairness, she may have believed (wholly or partly) that her ability was real, until hard questions and observations here and her mysterious 'survey' showed her it isn't. At that point, she was already 40+ pages into this thread, and had already proposed her 'study' - too late to back down without a significant loss of pride. I've noticed it's mostly the last month, since her 'survey', that Anita really began her dedicated stalling and delaying.

If she was deluded, she ain't going to admit it. Either because she wants to hold onto whatever is left of the delusion, or her ego won't allow her to.

I have to agree with:

1) self adulation or feeding a need for attention

2) some kind of "name recognition" ( which if done properly could help jumpstart a career)

3) Profit (writing the next round of woo books, infomercials and such)

I do think she gathered herself a couple of RSL's with this thread, though. :D

skeen
1st February 2009, 12:24 PM
Waffle waffle waffle. Anita, by default, you have no ability. You have to prove you do have it. As it stands now, you have no ability - we call this logic. Don't say, "But we don't know that yet" - you can't be that stupid. You can say that about any made up thing.

For instance, we don't know I'm not a magical dragon who manifests himself as a human being. I would not say to you, who would deny this is true, that you don't know that yet, that you must wait for further testing.

In any event, you have failed all testing miserably. That you can't see you have failed is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.

And you are not a Scientist. Stop it. And I have no reason to believe you're a straight-A student, not that it would lend anything to your already destroyed credibility anyway.

desertgal
1st February 2009, 12:26 PM
However I always remain as friendly and delightful throughout everything...

:dl:

I know that we are all eager to produce some sort of results to proceed in this investigation...

That would be "I", not "we". We have nothing to gain by your investigation. You do. Do all...ahem...star people have egos the size of Arcturus?

UncaYimmy, it is unscientific of you to state your assumptions as established facts in which you hold belief.

Wow. She's a liar and a hypocrite. Shocker.

Alright UncaYimmy! Send me your mailing address right this instant...

Yeah. Give his address to a wacko. That'll happen. :rolleyes:

These are my morals and my principles.

:dl:

GeeMack
1st February 2009, 12:37 PM
... and not a single case of inaccuracy.


But that is simply not true. If you know it's not true, you're a liar. If you believe it is true, you're sick. Which do you think it is, Anita?

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 12:48 PM
In fairness, she may have believed (wholly or partly) that her ability was real, until hard questions and observations here and her mysterious 'survey' showed her it isn't. At that point, she was already 40+ pages into this thread, and had already proposed her 'study' - too late to back down without a significant loss of pride. I've noticed it's mostly the last month, since her 'survey', that Anita really began her dedicated stalling and delaying.

If she was deluded, she ain't going to admit it. Either because she wants to hold onto whatever is left of the delusion, or her ego won't allow her to.

I have to agree with:

1) self adulation or feeding a need for attention

2) some kind of "name recognition" ( which if done properly could help jumpstart a career)

3) Profit (writing the next round of woo books, infomercials and such)

I do think she gathered herself a couple of RSL's with this thread, though. :D

Heres the reason I say that and dont give her any slack regarding any "belief" on her part indicating she is a willing.knowing and fully engaged scam artist. ( just from my experience as an investigator)

If you read her first post and webpage. She had already contacted IIG ( according to her) and on her page she has "experimented" with her "abilities" so she came here already fully engaged in the scam. This board is mainly for PR purposes.

She did her "test" in Nov and didnt miss anything ( according to her)

I dont accept that she never self tested before. ( assuming she really believed in her ability)

So, she willingly devises "tests" that give her the "proof" she wanted. She is throwing around the term "scientific" in hopes that it will give her credibility and wants to use it.

Now, she has been stood down by those here who know the method.

She came in here hoping to bamboozle just like con men often let a few 'marks" win to give their scam legitimacy.

Also, if she was all about "legitimacy" and science, why not go to the psychology department and get them to help her. No, she goes to a "skeptic" group. ( she needs skeptic buy in)

This is a well thought out scheme complete with an agenda, plan,goal and marketing ploy attached

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 01:10 PM
UncaYimmy is in a grumpy mood today...

I'm sorry, but is that a diagnosis made with Vibrational Information™? If so, can you please also give the extent? I'm not clear on how you have reached this conclusion. I say I am not grumpy. It looks like you rate me as a 4 on your grumpy scale. That makes it a 20% hit, right?

No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits
What? Selective quoting is a bad thing? Gee, I wonder why nobody ever told you that. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself, though, so I'm not worried. I'm sure you'll repeat yourself, though, so I'm not worried.

Not at all. I said that I read here but when someone's post starts to look like just a bunch of insults without any productive comments or constructive criticism I kind of skip those now.
I fixed it for you. It describes what you've done for the last 2,000 posts.

So, in case I miss an important question, do let me know. No one has to contact me by e-mail. It was just a suggestion. You don't know how busy I am.
Ah, the old repeat your statement routine. It's the routine where you repeat yourself. In it you say the same thing again. By repeating yourself. You know, the old repeat your statement routine. The one where you repeat yourself.

Excuse me? So you expect me to welcome insulting e-mails that are full of personal attacks into my e-mail account and sit and read all of them very carefully? Don't be pathetic, UncaYimmy.
Assimilate a new word, did we?

Here's what you just told us:

"Hi! I take a full course load with the hardest courses and maintain a 4.0 average. Being the perfect student means I am just too busy to actually read everyone's posts. If it looks like you have nothing useful to offer me, the most extraordinary human on the planet, then just e-mail me to request that I give your post a second look. But you had better be nice or I will ignore you there as well."

You're right - that's not insulting. Anybody else care to give me an appropriate adjective?

I am by no means obliged to read some of the type of comments posted here. :rolleyes:
Actually, you are. You are not obliged to respond. But you took this thing public. Deal with it. Show some respect to the people whose help you are requesting and rejecting.

My aren't we grumpy today.
Ah, the repeating thing again. Ah, the repeating thing again. Would this count as two hits now? Or just a 0.4 hit?

My forms are excellent. They are just as good as yours but include even more information.
That's like saying my toddler's finger painting of Daddy is more accurate than my neurologist's MRI because, well, look at all the
pretty colors!

The forms are not meant to prove anything
So you keep saying. Except, of course, when you say the opposite. Like when you told FACT, "Let's falsify this - if we can!"

So, how is it UncaYimmy? Are you trying to make excuses? Are you trying to stall the progress? Are you deluded and a liar? And are you afraid of having the claimed ability exposed for what it is? :)
I am going to invent a VisionFromFeeling™ clock where a mini-Anita pops out to announce what hour it is. The name for those kinds of clocks escapes me now. Anyway, mine will be different. It won't by in synch with the rest of the world. And if you don't agree about what hour it is, it will keep repeating the hour until you agree or drop it.

Could we stop arguing about the less important aspects and realize that I am in fact trying to arrange a location for the study?
Who is arguing? They told you could do it. I even bolded it for you. Do or don't do, there is no try.

Well grumpy man I repeat myself when people ask the same questions and when they didn't seem to understand my answer the first time.
Is that three hits or 0.6? Wow! What apparent accuracy! How many times did you tell the vasectomy guy he had a vasectomy? Is that how you got so many hits?

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 01:16 PM
Jonquill:
I thought it was kind of obvious that you couldn't announce on Friday that you are going to do a test in a park on Sunday and expect four helpers to be available at such short notice with the equipment needed (folding chairs and tables, pens etc). Especially since I think she said she doesn't drive and would have to rely on others to transport those things.
But maybe Anita doesn't think of practicalities like that. Six skeptics had already said that they were available this weekend. I had not received a final confirmation that is correct. Had I been able to reserve a location I would have called each of them and asked whether they will take part in it this weekend with the way that it has been arranged.

I will print and bring the forms, paperwork and all other material. No folding chairs or tables are necessary there is plenty of seating area everywhere and we can use clipboards to write on. There are people who can drive me there. I know that it wasn't all final or set but as soon as a location would have been reserved I would have made it work, one way or the other, even if some compromises would have been made. I want to have the study asap now that I'm ready with the paperwork.

UncaYimmy:
Anita, on your website it says, "For instance if the study reveals that I detect a certain condition 33% of the time, and a test requires me to identify the condition 10 times, then we would need at least 30 persons with the condition for the test."

That's not at all how it would work. I challenge you to find the flaws with that I have quoted, you know, since you're a straight A student and all. Hint: It involves statistics. You don't need the proper formulas, just use words to describe what the formula(s) would tell you. Alright, UncaYimmy challenged me. Let's see... if I learn that I detect a certain ailment only 1 in 3 times when it exists in people, and the test requires me to find it ten times, then we need at least 30 people with the ailment and I just might be able to find ten claimed perceptions. At least 30 people means a minimum of 30 are required. These 30 people will of course be mixed in among a lot of other people who do not have the ailment, something I did not mention, but the statement I made is true anyway. What is the right answer?

Coveredinbeeees:
Having a large number of sceptics trying alongside you sounds like a good way to find a base against which to compare your own results. That startled me a little bit, encountering a friendly comment.
The question remains, to what extent would your results need to deviate from those of the sceptic group in order for you to consider further study worthwhile?I don't know, I'm sorry. I'm just hoping that if there is no ability in accurately perceiving health information then that would be *obvious enough*. The main objectives of the study remain, to learn more about the paranormal claim. A non-ability might slip through the first study but it would be caught in a second study which I will design to be much more rigorous or the test, which ever would follow next.
Would you accept your "score" falling within the range obtained by a group of sceptics as evidence of no paranormal ability on your part?Most likely yes. Unless their score somehow comes from them "checking all the boxes" or something silly like that. I am prepared to falsify a non-ability, yes. :)
How would you incorporate such a control group into your study?I would like to suggest that when a particular FACT Skeptic is being viewed by me then all the other skeptics who feel willing will also try to fill in a form relating to that person. Then we can see what that brings about.
It is late so I hope you'll excuse me not going back through the thread to check, but I believe you mentioned a special meeting of your sceptic group happening for part of your study. If so you should consider asking some of the members to bring friends who can act as the subjects of the study while you and the group of sceptics act as viewers. Here (http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/5095237/) and here (http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/5103726/). No, I want the skeptics to also be volunteers to be seen by me. This time, and not later, since the longer we wait to do that the more cold reading could have been available. Of course each skeptic has the choice whether to participate in being the volunteer. I will send them an e-mail to remind them that if they attend the next meeting it is their choice whether to participate as volunteers to be seen by me, and a reminder that there are ways to ensure that their answers in the forms remain anonymous. Since we will be a smaller group I suggest that the identification numbers in the top margins although printed on the papers are concealed during the time of the study so that no one can *remember* who had what number. Since I print the volunteer's health form, claimant's health form, and skeptic's health forms in threes all with the same identification number and I then staple these threes together, the numbers can at that point be concealed and we can ensure that they are detached and distributed carefully as belonging to one particular volunteer so that papers don't get mixed up. Also I suggest that the question of year of birth or age is not included this time if we want to better ensure anonymity in the questions.
My concern is that using sceptics from the group as subjects would be complicated due to the viewers and subjects having associated in the past. Presumably everyone knows who had flu last month or an operation last year and the like, within the group.Yes but I don't know them very well. Some cold reading is available for the study I know that, but the point is it is still possible to reveal a non-ability and to learn more. This is not a test.
I am not sure what you mean by higher frequency above. Do you mean to say that you expect to mark down more ailments for a given subject than the average sceptic in a group reading? Higher frequency as in detecting a particular type of ailment more times total among all the volunteers seen, and the control persons who also fill in forms by looking at volunteers would claim to detect those ailments fewer times than I did. Something like that. *unscientific*
I would expect a sceptic taking part in this would be duty bound to play the odds and mark ailments they would expect the subject to have based on age and gender even if they can't tell for sure that they are present.You bet. The skeptics who also fill in forms and try to do what I do are encouraged to use any cold reading or other skills that they can think of to try to produce the highest possible correlation! It is highly encouraged! It is not clearly defined but should give some idea.
In any event I expect that the frequency of answers is less of a factor than the accuracy of answers. Good point.

Akhenaten:
Since we all appear to be connected to the internet, we don't need to create transcripts of emails in order to divulge their contents. There is technology available which allows us to simply forward complete emails to multiple recipients. Perhaps you don't have any skeptics email addresses? I think paranormal investigations are interesting (when conducted properly and with full intent of following it through) and I am enjoying the exercise of a scientific investigation into an unusual experience that I was unable to falsify on my own. I have decided to make my investigation public access since it might interest others who are interested in science, pseudoscience, and paranormal claims. That is why I wanted to make the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation public. To simply e-mail it to one or a few would not serve that purpose. However, I suspect that perhaps you are hoping to receive forwarded e-mails from Park and Recreation so that you can inspect whether they in fact did come from such a sender. So I will send them to you and you can do your skeptical analysis on them. :) I'll send you a friendly e-mail. :)
You seem to be settling into this title, but it sucks. How about "Vibrationalist"?No in this regard I am a paranormal claimant.
It's "conduct". Conduction is something that physics students might learn about in regard to electricity. Maybe.Sorry. Not only am I Swedish but I am also a Physics student. It was bound to happen. :blush: It is too late to go and change it now. The whole world has seen it. Thank you, Akhenaten, I am very gradient grateful that you detected my magnetism mistake. I had no induction intention of coming across with such interference inaccuracy.

desertgal
1st February 2009, 01:17 PM
Heres the reason I say that and dont give her any slack regarding any "belief" on her part indicating she is a willing.knowing and fully engaged scam artist. ( just from my experience as an investigator)

If you read her first post and webpage. She had already contacted IIG ( according to her) and on her page she has "experimented" with her "abilities" so she came here already fully engaged in the scam. This board is mainly for PR purposes.

She did her "test" in Nov and didnt miss anything ( according to her)

I dont accept that she never self tested before. ( assuming she really believed in her ability)

So, she willingly devises "tests" that give her the "proof" she wanted. She is throwing around the term "scientific" in hopes that it will give her credibility and wants to use it.

Now, she has been stood down by those here who know the method.

She came in here hoping to bamboozle just like con men often let a few 'marks" win to give their scam legitimacy.

Also, if she was all about "legitimacy" and science, why not go to the psychology department and get them to help her. No, she goes to a "skeptic" group. ( she needs skeptic buy in)

This is a well thought out scheme complete with an agenda, plan,goal and marketing ploy attached

Fair enough.

It's a hard call, I think - delusional vs. intentional scam.

If she's scamming, then she would behave exactly as you say.

If she's in an advanced delusional state, she would also behave the way she has, in order to perpetuate the delusion.

Either way, even if she suddenly developed an ethical streak (or, even, one ethic), her ego wouldn't allow her to admit which it might be.

So, really, this thread has boiled down to entertainment value at Anita's expense, conveniently located over her head.

I want the skeptics to also be volunteers to be seen by me.

Of course she does. She's attended two skeptic meetings already. She's had time to observe things about them that she can 'detect' with cold reading Vibrational InformationTM. :rolleyes:

I am going to invent a VisionFromFeeling™ clock where a mini-Anita pops out to announce what hour it is. The name for those kinds of clocks escapes me now. Anyway, mine will be different. It won't by in synch with the rest of the world. And if you don't agree about what hour it is, it will keep repeating the hour until you agree or drop it.

Brilliant! :D

al_capone_junior
1st February 2009, 01:29 PM
Ah, the old repeat your statement routine. It's the routine where you repeat yourself. In it you say the same thing again. By repeating yourself. You know, the old repeat your statement routine. The one where you repeat yourself.

Classic! Hilarious! :D:D

I've been watching this thread for a while now, and this is just the kind of stuff that makes 50-something pages of the same old "I have supernatural abilities, look at me" nonsense so entertaining! :D

BTW

Vision from feeling sounds pretty new-agey, and the pink motif (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/) really reels 'em in... you know, the suckers! :eek:

However, being a gambler myself, I wouldn't bet on this particular supernatural "test" ever being actually conducted.

al

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 01:36 PM
Fair enough.

It's a hard call, I think - delusional vs. intentional scam.

her ego wouldn't allow her to admit which is might be.

Its a safe bet its one or the other and right now ( based on the thread and her site) its a coin flip.

Its true a persons education/intellect has no bearing on whether or not they are delusional. That said, in my opinion, looking at the whole of the parts, she is scamming.

I refer to Jaspers criteria for a delusion

>>>certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

If you accept VfF's words as true she doesnt have an "absolute conviction" but wants to "prove" it to herself ( and everyone else)- she is trying the "Kirk Solution" in the Kobayashi Maru to make the tests produce what she wants ( going against incorrigibility) and hiding in the ambiguity of falsity of content.

Her own words and site ( if you believe them) go against anything that could be construed as clinical delusion.

For the above reasons, I dont believe its her "ego" that will prohibit her but the effect on her end goals that will.

GeeMack
1st February 2009, 01:38 PM
I am prepared to falsify a non-ability, yes.

[...]

... but the point is it is still possible to reveal a non-ability and to learn more.


And these are the kinds of ludicrous things you continue to say which prove to us that you're either a bald faced liar or you're mentally ill. If you have some kind of extra-sensory ability, you'd need to demonstrate that you have that ability, not falsify or reveal a non-ability. You might think you're getting past us with that double talk, Anita, but you're not. No science there. It's called bullcrap. A clear effort to deceive... or... you really think you're being straight-up, in which case you obviously have a serious mental health problem.

So, Anita, which do you think it is?

skeen
1st February 2009, 01:48 PM
I have to admit, the double-talk is pretty hilarious.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 01:54 PM
The scale will stay on the health forms.
Of course it will. In the future I think we should tell you what not to do so you will do it. It doesn't matter, though. You can ignore the scale for the purposes of falsifying your claim. That's what Ashles is driving at.

It's obvious to everyone why you insist on this scale. You're not fooling anyone, including yourself.

For scoring the study I will leave it to the discretion of the FACT Skeptics to disregard the when and extent columns entirely if they feel that that is the most appropriate for extracting some results from the study.

Oh, so 2,000 posts later we're all out of the picture?

So at this point I did not have a clear message that would tell me that it
You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Or you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Maybe you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. How about you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described?

I know that we are all eager to produce some sort of results to proceed in this investigation,
Wrong. We are all eager to end this investigation by proving that you are a fraud, delusional, or simply misguided. You keep getting in the way of that.

I am naturally going to be careful if involving my university in this unconventional paranormal investigation. Maybe those of you who attended college and took it to the Ph.D. level as I will can relate to this. Now that my study is designed and I have spoken about it with persons such as with Park and Recreation and begun to feel that perhaps it is not as bad as it could have been, I feel better about involving people in it. Only now that I feel more confident about this investigation do I consider the involvement of students to be an option. Still I would not involve professors or involve any of the university itself in my investigation.
"Look at me! I'm really trying!"

The above is double-talk.
I was not going to use the local skeptics as volunteers until I was ready with the design of the study
You complained that you wanted to do the study, but they wouldn't let you. You asked people to stay after the meeting, but only one did.

Are you lying or are you delusional?


I have sent an e-mail to the local skeptics group asking for an extra meeting this month of February for me to have the study with the skeptics as volunteers. I suggested Saturday February 7.
You already said that. I pointed out that you are contaminating your study/test pool by getting even more time to do cold reading. You've already spent several hours with these people.

Oh UncaYimmy, stop nagging.
Says the woman who keeps sending IMs to someone who is not responding.

However I always remain as friendly and delightful throughout everything, whereas some of you guys are showing some grumpy attitude.
If this is your idea of apparent accuracy...

I did not receive a clear yes from Park and Recreation.
You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Or you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Maybe you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. How about you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described?

Six skeptics had said that they were available for the study this weekend.
That is a lie. You said they had expressed interest but had not even replied to receiving the protocol or questionnaire.

You are just being ridiculous. I will not use a facility or space for an event of a controversial and possibly disturbing kind without permission to do so.
You can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Or you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. Maybe you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described. How about you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described?

Alright UncaYimmy! Send me your mailing address right this instant and I will mail you photocopies of my notes from the survey! Then you can type them up for me will ya! It'll be a lot of work, meanwhile I am focusing on the study. Should keep you busy for a while. :rolleyes:
Follow the link in my signature to get my business address and fax number. I prefer a fax because I can post the PDFs. If money is an issue, set up a PayPal account so I can reimburse you. By sending me your notes, you are agreeing that I can publish the results, giving you full credit, of course.

tsig
1st February 2009, 01:54 PM
Classic! Hilarious! :D:D

I've been watching this thread for a while now, and this is just the kind of stuff that makes 50-something pages of the same old "I have supernatural abilities, look at me" nonsense so entertaining! :D

BTW

Vision from feeling sounds pretty new-agey, and the pink motif (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/) really reels 'em in... you know, the suckers! :eek:

However, being a gambler myself, I wouldn't bet on this particular supernatural "test" ever being actually conducted.

al

Weather you conduct the test doesn't matter, the fact that you talked about it with skeptics gives you street cred with the woos.

"The psychic that Randi couldn't debunk" has a nice ring,no?

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 01:59 PM
Asm:
Hi Anita,

Just out of curiosity,

When you started this thread you seemed convinced that you had paranormal abilities. Now, a couple of thousand posts later, are you:

a) Still just as convinced?
b) Less convinced?a) I am still just as convinced as I was then that I have accurately perceived health information in cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available and there still hasn't been a single case of confirmed inaccuracy. However I am not convinced that I have paranormal abilities since unintentional cold reading or guessing might be responsible. The study and tests will find out.
And secondly, the possibility that you might be suffering from a mild delusion has been suggested several times. People don't do that to be rude, but to help you. How do you react to those suggestions, do you think:

a) "I know I am not deluded"?
b) "There might be something to it"?a) I know I am not deluded. The perceptions in themselves are no reason for concern, and the way I handle the perceptions are also no reason for concern. If the perceptions are not based on real world information and are subjective impressions then I would not refer to them as delusions.
If you don't want to answer, that's okay. But if you do, please try to keep it simple, a) or b).Kept it as simple as can be.
Hugs. :grouphug5 Locknar is the one in the middle.

Ashles:
The majority of correct results (which anyone could get by putting N to everything) would be No ailment detected, No ailment present. So we remove them (at this stage) as not useful.The point scale system I suggested is not what I intend to use. It was just a suggestion and is seriously flawed. When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person. Once I make a claimed perception it is open to be checked for accuracy as correct or incorrect. When I do not detect an ailment there is nothing to be checked for or against. The when and extent columns are intended for educational purposes for me to get clearer about the details of the claim. The when and extent columns are used for determination of correlation only if those who determine the correlation choose to include it. I will of course look heavily on the extent columns to learn more about my claim, since part of my claim is to be able to perceive to what extent a person perceives their ailments. Oh well. It is a study, not a test. But trust me (although none of you will) I will be looking heavily to try to find reasons toward falsifying the claimed ability. *no one believes me that I would do that :nope:*
Also it helps you because if you write down N and the subject actually puts a 5 (or anything indicating an ailment) it will still not be counted.That is correct. If I do not detect an ailment that is not counted against me as a miss. Even though I missed an ailment. Only when I claim to perceive an ailment is it open to be checked for accuracy.
So if you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the Volunteer puts down 2, 3, 4, or 5 we will, for the purposes of this, consider those Hits.
If you put down 3, 4 or 5 and the volunteer puts down a N we will consider this a Miss.I like that. I like that a lot.
Taking such results I would personally say that a ratio of Misses to Hits of less than 1:5 would be enough to indicate a Non-Ability.I feel that as the claimant I am not able to determine what ratio would conclude no ability so I will leave it up to the skeptics.
I think that is very fair as, bearing in mind the extraordinary level of accuracy you have so far claimed, and the amazing level of detail and range you claim your 'ability' to have, you should, even on a bad day, be ble to perform far above that.Yes.
And your scores of 3, 4 or 5 should be considered that you definitely feel you are perceiving something with your ability.Yes.
Please take that to Dr Carlson. I will do that.
Now I am convinced your instant reaction on reading that is to reject it. :confused: What? After all I said above?
Already you are thinking of how it can be modified, how can we remove the word 'Miss' from it, how can you generate an argument to disagree with the assumptions made...:cry1 I did no such things!
But I would ask you to pause a moment and really think about why you are instantly rejecting it.:cry1
But, in all fairness, I see absolutely no reason why you would not accept this method of judging as a fair indicator of no-ability.:)
As a science student it is genuinely bafling to me that after three years you cannot formulate a falsification scenario from this test.:( It is not a test! It is a study! It's like if you find a new insect you've never seen before and you want to study its behavior patterns at first you want to observe it in its own environment and take notes and only then do you think about taking it into a lab to subject it to controlled environments in order to find out what specificly caused what! *why can't I do a study on my paranormal claim*
ignored undesirable resultsI have done no such thing. I have acknowledged that the perception of strain below the sternum as associated with the small intestine might not at all be associated with the small intestine while realizing that in fact it might. I had stated that I found no health problems with Wayne but that I sensed the left shoulder and adam's apple and that neither of those were perceptions of health problems. Besides if results are of inaccuracy I would not consider them to be undesirable. :)
have no method of data analysis, and cannot so far come up with a method of falsification...those take away from your "skills as a scientistLook at the insect analogy again. Why can't a scientist first study the subject before it is to be investigated further.
Interesting that your first instinct to get backup for your scientific position is to go to another non-scientist who makes paranormal claims who also leaves his experiments open to interpretation.
As a scientist you should moving away from such clealry inconclusive research and towards stricter scientific protocols.No, I was intending to conduct that research properly.
And yet you have the opportunity to start that brave stance even as a student, yet constantly shy away from it by refusing to run tests at your own Uni?
In fact this directly contradicts your earlier claims that you don't want asociation with the paranormal to endanger your career..No contradiction. I started being very hesitant to involve my career with my spare time paranormal investigation. Now that I've communicated with various people about the investigation I feel more encouraged since it wasn't as bad as it could have been. So I am gradually changing my position with regard to this as I learn more about what people in fact do think about this kind of thing.
Some of the worst work in these fields have been caried out when individuals claiming paranormal ability have been 'tested' by those who also want to believe.If I test the claims of a woo I will have no interest in seeing them pass or fail. Don't make the assumption that my research would be biased.
We always encourage experimentation to look into it.
But the clamant has to take some responsibility and be open to the idea of being incorrect.And I am doing all that. I am taking responsibility and I am open to the possibility of falsifying my claim. :rolleyes:
To be honest, at the moment all the work being done to actually generate a strict protocol and any falsification methodology ought to be going on our CVs not yours.Both of ours then.
Please, please work on developing a decent and agreed protocol before going off on these flights of fancy about how you will become one of the world's leading paranormal investigators. All that talk simply detracts from your credibility.The study is not a test. And it is a decent study.
You want us to concentrate on talking about the study - you should too.And I do.
It seems like you are taking this study and 'ability' to be already assumed and simply the first stepping stone onto an inevitable and exciting career.Paranormal investigations will not be my career. It might become an interesting hobby on the side. I am definitely learning a lot by doing a paranormal investigation, so what ever. :hug7

skeen
1st February 2009, 02:03 PM
It is not a test! It is a study! It's like if you find a new insect you've never seen before and you want to study its behavior patterns at first you want to observe it in its own environment and take notes and only then do you think about taking it into a lab to subject it to controlled environments in order to find out what specificly caused what! *why can't I do a study on my paranormal claim*

Erm, your analysis would work better if you replaced insect with leprechaun. See, we know that there are insects, I can go get one right now. The same cannot be said for leprechaun's; they're myths, like ESP.

We have not established that your ability even exists, or that it is even possible, let alone that you have it. Where is your basis sense of logic, Anita?

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 02:04 PM
All those words, so little substance

GeeMack
1st February 2009, 02:14 PM
Besides if results are of inaccuracy I would not consider them to be undesirable.


No, you would simply not consider them at all. You would continue to engage in your willful ignorance and pretend that you've never once been inaccurate. And of course, because we know that isn't true, that would lend more support to the notion that you have some serious mental health issue you should be addressing. Unless you know you're wrong and you're just lying to us.

Which do you think it is, Anita?

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 02:18 PM
If you accept VfF's words as true she doesnt have an "absolute conviction" but wants to "prove" it to herself ( and everyone else)- she is trying the "Kirk Solution" in the Kobayashi Maru to make the tests produce what she wants ( going against incorrigibility) and hiding in the ambiguity of falsity of content

It depends on which words you accept. She only says that she has no "absolute conviction" when she's backed into a corner. In plenty of other places her conviction is obvious, especially in her actions. Her behavior is entirely consistent with someone who truly believes what she is doing is real.

The problem I have with considering her to be a fraud is that she is absolutely horrible at it. For example, she posted results showing how accurate she was in chemical identification. We pointed out the flaws including her checking herself after each trial and thus teaching herself which was which.

She devised a new test with a number of controls we suggested but NOT the one about checking her answers after each trial. She then started a new test. After a couple of trials and being wrong, she removed a cup. Then another. Then the lids. Then she wet just the one with chemical. Then she took a few more trials and quit because she was tired.

And she told us all about it in great detail!

Is that how a fraud would behave? It makes absolutely no sense. In your experience, is that how a fraud would behave when there's absolutely no way for anybody to check up on them? I would think they would say they did everything we suggested and report results that were clearly better than chance but not utterly and amazingly so.

On her website she links back to the moderated thread where I point out all of her inconsistent behavior including detailed posts about her being unskeptical, unreliable and possibly mentally ill. Why would a fraud do that?

If she's a fraud, why would she post an e-mail exchange where the park officials tell her flat out that she can do what she wants to do in a reserved pavilion or room, yet repeatedly insist that she was refused permission? That's delusional.

Her Skype address in on her website. Initiate an IM chat with her on your own. Interview her yourself. I'd be interested to hear what you think. I've been there and done that. Another perspective would be good.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 02:22 PM
desertgal:
It already has been exposed for what it is. A delusion. A lie. A scam. Take your pick. It has not been revealed as any of those things. I have not made a single verified incorrect perception.

Everyone:
My my aren't we impatient and trying to turn that into something against me. This paranormal investigation requires people with health problems. I do apologize if I didn't just go out into the public and harass people about their health problems like I was told to do a while back. A study has now been designed that enables the volunteers to remain anonymous, and local skeptics have been involved in participating in the study. It is ready now. Guys, just relax. The study or studies will take place.

I am not mentally ill, deluded, or a liar. I perceive medical perceptions when I look at people and there has been apparent accuracy and cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available. I am therefore conducting a scientific investigation to find out what the source of these perceptions are.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 02:28 PM
When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person.
Unless your name is Wayne, in which case she only mentioned it because it wasn't worth mentioning.

skeen
1st February 2009, 02:30 PM
Ah yes, impatience. Is that your way of explaining away your ducking and diving? No-one buys your crap, Anita. Why even try? Get some help.

desertgal
1st February 2009, 02:32 PM
desertgal:
It has not been revealed as any of those things.

To her, no. To us, yes. :rolleyes:

Let me fix this for her:
I have not made a single verified incorrect perception that I will admit to.

That's accurate, and verified by this thread. :rolleyes:

Everyone:
I do apologize if I didn't just go out into the public and harass people about their health problems...

Just "friends" and "family". :rolleyes:

A study has now been designed that enables the volunteers to remain anonymous

Except, of course, the skeptics she has already met. :rolleyes:

Guys, just relax. The study or studies will take place.

We're relaxed. We're just having fun at her expense at this point.

I am not mentally ill, deluded, or a liar.

Sure. Whatever she says. :rolleyes:

I perceive medical perceptions when I look at people...

Except when she doesn't. :rolleyes:

...and there has been apparent accuracy...

Except when there hasn't. :rolleyes:

...and cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available.

Like "reading" that a male subject has an Adam's Apple. :rolleyes:

I am therefore conducting a scientific investigation to find out what the source of these perceptions are.

Which takes us back to she is either deluded, a liar, or a scam artist. Take your pick. You can even pick more than one.

Locknar
1st February 2009, 02:35 PM
<snip> I am therefore conducting a scientific investigation to find out what the source of these perceptions are.No, you're not. You are busy playing scientist.

If you were really doing this, with a self professed life time of such ability you'd have already done so.

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 02:38 PM
It depends on which words you accept. She only says that she has no "absolute conviction" when she's backed into a corner. In plenty of other places her conviction is obvious, especially in her actions. Her behavior is entirely consistent with someone who truly believes what she is doing is real.

The problem I have with considering her to be a fraud is that she is absolutely horrible at it. For example, she posted results showing how accurate she was in chemical identification. We pointed out the flaws including her checking herself after each trial and thus teaching herself which was which.

She devised a new test with a number of controls we suggested but NOT the one about checking her answers after each trial. She then started a new test. After a couple of trials and being wrong, she removed a cup. Then another. Then the lids. Then she wet just the one with chemical. Then she took a few more trials and quit because she was tired.

And she told us all about it in great detail!

Is that how a fraud would behave? It makes absolutely no sense. In your experience, is that how a fraud would behave when there's absolutely no way for anybody to check up on them? I would think they would say they did everything we suggested and report results that were clearly better than chance but not utterly and amazingly so.

On her website she links back to the moderated thread where I point out all of her inconsistent behavior including detailed posts about her being unskeptical, unreliable and possibly mentally ill. Why would a fraud do that?

If she's a fraud, why would she post an e-mail exchange where the park officials tell her flat out that she can do what she wants to do in a reserved pavilion or room, yet repeatedly insist that she was refused permission? That's delusional.

Her Skype address in on her website. Initiate an IM chat with her on your own. Interview her yourself. I'd be interested to hear what you think. I've been there and done that. Another perspective would be good.

>>>Is that how a fraud would behave? It makes absolutely no sense. In your experience, is that how a fraud would behave when there's absolutely no way for anybody to check up on them? I would think they would say they did everything we suggested and report results that were clearly better than chance but not utterly and amazingly so.

Actually yes, her conduct is almost textbook as to profiling a con. For example, a good con man KNOWS he is running a game that either cannot be proven ( because it doesnt exist) and as such also knows it often cannot be disproven for the same reason. ( remember they KNOW the truth and as such design all scripts to skirt it) They operate in 2 modes when conning:

99% of the truth is a lie

99 truths out of 100 total is still a lie

They anticipate questions and have canned answers that always end either open ended or open to personal interpretation and when they feel cornered- they go into long solilquies in hopes of "sounding" smart or doing a data dump willed with enough fluff to hopefully bog you down so you will miss the small facts in it.

Dr Meehan who did the "data dump" on the DNA ( which he knew was misleading) in the Duke case is an example. ( until Brad caught him)

>>>The problem I have with considering her to be a fraud is that she is absolutely horrible at it. For example, she posted results showing how accurate she was in chemical identification. We pointed out the flaws including her checking herself after each trial and thus teaching herself which was which.


I would say she is very good at it. The tactic you illustrate is an age old game where they give the "illusion" of sincerity by appearing "weak" or stupid. ( cons frequently play dumb so the mark THINKS he has the upper hand and then whammo) The clue is that she hasnt responded as a scientific mind would ( stop and re evaluate) or as a delusion would ( continue to argue her point from a denialist perspective)

Also, she is quite deliberate in provoking responses she wants ( she has a reason, its just not clear yet)

>>>On her website she links back to the moderated thread where I point out all of her inconsistent behavior including detailed posts about her being unskeptical, unreliable and possibly mentally ill. Why would a fraud do that?

simple, this isnt her "target audience"- she is "establishing credibility" by facing skeptics and sticking to her guns. ( as time goes on, she will spin that to her advantage)

>>>If she's a fraud, why would she post an e-mail exchange where the park officials tell her flat out that she can do what she wants to do in a reserved pavilion or room, yet repeatedly insist that she was refused permission? That's delusional.

Its called cherry picking what she wanted you to hear. Its no different when a suspect would tell me they were somewhere else and hand me some obscure "proof" or alibi until i showed them the video. That whole park thing is a smoke and mirror. Its the "elaborate ruse". For her experiment, she doesnt NEED any formal setting. it could be in someones living room. idf she wanted volunteers, post her experiment around campus requesting some or at the local sports bar.

Shes just obfuscating- nothing more.

This is just my experience but nothing I see points to anything other than a deliberate, methodical, thought out scam.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 02:39 PM
skeen:
In any event, you have failed all testing miserably. That you can't see you have failed is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.What testing? There has been no testing of my paranormal claim of accurately detecting health information! That you can't see that there has been no testing yet and especially no failed testing yet is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.

GeeMack:
... and not a single case of inaccuracy.
But that is simply not true. If you know it's not true, you're a liar. If you believe it is true, you're sick. Which do you think it is, Anita? Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.

UncaYimmy:
No I am not required to read every single post very carefully anymore now that I am busy with the other things in my life. You do realize that many of the posts here are only full of insults and nothing that I would need to comment on or reply to?

al capone junior:
Vision from feeling sounds pretty new-agey, and the pink motif really reels 'em in... you know, the suckers!What can I say. I'm a girl. If I were a boy my webpage would probably be blue. :p

LONGTABBER PE:
I refer to Jaspers criteria for a delusion

>>>certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue) Honey, by that definition I am definitely not deluded. *although they won't believe that :nope:*

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 02:43 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
Honey, by that definition I am definitely not deluded. *although they won't believe that :nope:*

I agree, you are not. You are a con artist.

Another sign of the con- they always have an "answer' for everything. ( they have to because if they didnt, any person looking would see thru it because in reality, it never was there)

This "experiment" is like a blog infomercial about a pill that makes a certain part of the male anatomy grow.

Locknar
1st February 2009, 02:46 PM
I agree, you are not. You are a con artist.

Another sign of the con- they always have an "answer' for everything. ( they have to because if they didnt, any person looking would see thru it because in reality, it never was there)True...but to what end, what is the con?

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 02:49 PM
UncaYimmy:
Are you lying or are you delusional?Neither. :rolleyes:
You already said that. I pointed out that you are contaminating your study/test pool by getting even more time to do cold reading. You've already spent several hours with these people.Yes I know that but the skeptics are still credible volunteers and if I make a lot of incorrect perceptions then it will provide evidence against my paranormal claim. As I've said the study can not provide evidence for the claim but can provide evidence against it.
If she's a fraud, why would she post an e-mail exchange where the park officials tell her flat out that she can do what she wants to do in a reserved pavilion or room, yet repeatedly insist that she was refused permission? That's delusional.I will write them again and receive specific permission to conduct the study at a reserved location in the park. I will then go and check out the location and take pictures of it and e-mail these to the skeptics who have expressed interest, and we will hopefully be able to have the study there. :)

tsig:
Weather you conduct the test doesn't matter, the fact that you talked about it with skeptics gives you street cred with the woos.I don't care. I am doing this investigation with skeptics and scientists.
"The psychic that Randi couldn't debunk" has a nice ring,no? No. I love Randi. If my paranormal claim involves a non-ability and it somehow slipped past studies, and tests, and ended up at the JREF then I would be happy if Randi figured out how to falsify it. :)

desertgal
1st February 2009, 02:49 PM
Its a safe bet its one or the other and right now ( based on the thread and her site) its a coin flip.

I suppose I lean towards delusional because of her persistent irrationality, and illogical refusal to see her contradictions and the flaws in her own arguments. Also, there are her endless "wall o'texts", which makes me wonder whom she is trying to persuade-us or herself? She doesn't even attempt to counter logic with logic-she just veers off into irrational or disingenuous tangents.

IF she is scamming, then I would have to assume that she is capable of some logic-at least, enough to cook up her claims-and her manipulations here are just the opposite. They are so illogical and transparent, they not only defy credulity, they took credulity outside and ran a Mack truck over it.

Her own words and site ( if you believe them) go against anything that could be construed as clinical delusion.

I dunno. Having experienced clinical delusion, I see a lot of similarities. But, of course, it's a matter of personal interpretation.

For the above reasons, I dont believe its her "ego" that will prohibit her but the effect on her end goals that will.

Wouldn't her ego be tied into the effect on her and her end goals? There's some evidence of ego as far as not being willing to face the embarrassment of admitting she is either delusional or scamming (we know that she considers "delusional" to be shameful, since she's used it as an insult), and, as well, there's some evidence of ego in that she believes that people will believe her claims. After all, she's claiming abilities that would make her the most extraordinary medical diagnostician/ghost hunter/animal psychic/prospective Nobel winner on the planet. Ever. You'd have to be arrogant as hell to believe that anyone would buy that.

Or maybe that's just her alter ego: Vision From SightTM. :D

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 02:50 PM
True...but to what end, what is the con?

Cant say ( not enough evidence yet) but given the level of effort ( a website, all the postings at boards[ marketing] and time invested) it suggests to me that there is an end and it has some form of payoff attached.

Could be ego, could be a field study for a psychology thesis, could be the next "great" woo thing ( with money at the end)

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 03:00 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
Actually yes, her conduct is almost textbook as to profiling a con. For example, a good con man KNOWS he is running a game that either cannot be proven ( because it doesnt exist) and as such also knows it often cannot be disproven for the same reason. ( remember they KNOW the truth and as such design all scripts to skirt it) I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.
I would say she is very good at it. The tactic you illustrate is an age old game where they give the "illusion" of sincerity by appearing "weak" or stupid. ( cons frequently play dumb so the mark THINKS he has the upper hand and then whammo) The clue is that she hasnt responded as a scientific mind would ( stop and re evaluate) or as a delusion would ( continue to argue her point from a denialist perspective):D It is funny reading your analyses. ;)
Also, she is quite deliberate in provoking responses she wants ( she has a reason, its just not clear yet)Funny. :)
simple, this isnt her "target audience"- she is "establishing credibility" by facing skeptics and sticking to her guns. ( as time goes on, she will spin that to her advantage)Oh dear. :) I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.
This is just my experience but nothing I see points to anything other than a deliberate, methodical, thought out scam. There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

Locknar:
True...but to what end, what is the con? Way to go Locknar! :cheerleader1

LONGTABBER PE:
Cant say ( not enough evidence yet) but given the level of effort ( a website, all the postings at boards[ marketing] and time invested) it suggests to me that there is an end and it has some form of payoff attached.My how surprised you will be when it is revealed that the intent I have with this investigation is just to look into an unusual experience. :)
Could be ego, could be a field study for a psychology thesis, could be the next "great" woo thing ( with money at the end) This investigation is to explain why I can look at people and perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information. That's what it's all about. :p

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 03:00 PM
I suppose I lean towards delusional because of her persistent irrationality, and illogical refusal to see her contradictions and the flaws in her own arguments. Also, there are her endless "wall o'texts", which makes me wonder whom she is trying to persuade-us or herself? She doesn't even attempt to counter logic with logic-she just veers off into irrational or disingenuous tangents.

IF she is scamming, then I would have to assume that she is capable of some logic-at least, enough to cook up her claims-and her manipulations here are just the opposite. They are so illogical and transparent, they not only defy credulity, they took credulity outside and ran a Mack truck over it.



I dunno. Having experienced clinical delusion, I see a lot of similarities. But, of course, it's a matter of personal interpretation.



Wouldn't her ego be tied into the effect on her and her end goals? There's some evidence of ego as far as not being willing to face the embarrassment of admitting she is either delusional or scamming (we know that she considers "delusional" to be shameful, since she's used it as an insult), and, as well, there's some evidence of ego in that she believes that people will believe her claims. After all, she's claiming abilities that would make her the most extraordinary medical diagnostician/ghost hunter/animal psychic/prospective Nobel winner on the planet. Ever. You'd have to be arrogant as hell to believe that anyone would buy that.

Or maybe that's just her alter ego: Vision From SightTM. :D

I agree, we are both looking at this thru our personal experiences and honestly the jury is still out.

>>>I suppose I lean towards delusional because of her persistent irrationality, and illogical refusal to see her contradictions and the flaws in her own arguments. Also, there are her endless "wall o'texts", which makes me wonder whom she is trying to persuade-us or herself?

We used to call that 'explaining away". My opinion is that the answer is neither and this whole thing is for the woo audience. ( setting herself up as a scientific woo with a Joan of Arc syndrome for future use after this is all forgotten) It wouldnt be the first time a con artist has "seeded" the field.

>>>IF she is scamming, then I would have to assume that she is capable of some logic-at least, enough to cook up her claims-and her manipulations here are just the opposite. They are so illogical and transparent, they not only defy credulity, they took credulity outside and ran a Mack truck over it.

Thats how we used to catch them. They DO understand logic and use it. I see her using generic logic ( devoid of reason). Her goal is establishing that it CAN work. ( not proving that it DOES work) Infomercial scams do this all the time with no money down making money in your underwear with free government funds. They use 'simple logic" the exact same way.

>>>Wouldn't her ego be tied into the effect on her and her end goals? There's some evidence of ego as far as not being willing to face the embarrassment of admitting she is either delusional or scamming (we know that she considers "delusional" to be shameful, since she's used it as an insult), and, as well, there's some evidence of ego in that she believes that people will believe her claims. After all, she's claiming abilities that would make her the most extraordinary medical diagnostician/ghost hunter/animal psychic/prospective Nobel winner on the planet. Ever. You'd have to be arrogant as hell to believe that anyone would buy that.

Its rare that the con lets his ego get in the way of his end goal. ( I've seen them cry, beg,plead, stand tough- whatever the situation called for)

She isnt going to "face" anything because she already knows her "testing" will produce what she wants and she will then shed all negative remarks like water on a ducks back.

Remember, this is all just a testing sandbox for the "real" end goal.

desertgal
1st February 2009, 03:01 PM
skeen:
What testing? There has been no testing of my paranormal claim of accurately detecting health information! That you can't see that there has been no testing yet and especially no failed testing yet is the result of either your excruciating stupidity, or your mental disorder.

Oh, look. Anita is assimilating terms now. :rolleyes:

GeeMack:

Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.

Oh, let her ask it again and again. We don't mind.

You do realize that many of the posts here are only full of insults and nothing that I would need to comment on or reply to?

For "insults", see "honesty". Not that Anita would know the difference. :rolleyes:

What can I say. I'm a girl. If I were a boy my webpage would probably be blue. :p

And if she were really a "star people", her webpage would have little stars and such. Maybe a spaceship. Wouldn't that be cool?

Are you lying or are you delusional?
Neither.

Both. :rolleyes:

Yes I know that but the skeptics are still credible volunteers and if I make a lot of incorrect perceptions then it will provide evidence against my paranormal claim.

And she can get more hits with cold reading. :rolleyes:

I will write them again and receive specific permission to conduct the study at a reserved location in the park. I will then go and check out the location and take pictures of it and e-mail these to the skeptics who have expressed interest, and we will hopefully be able to have the study there.

More stalling. More delays. More dodging.

:dl:

Fixed them for her:
I look at people and I pretend/cold read to perceive health information. My perceptions cold reading has had no apparent correlation to the actual health of persons, but I change that when I write my anecdotes. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely pretending to be working toward a scientific explanation. It could be is unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation as I fictionalized it to be. I want to find out. I want to "sell" this ability/maintain my delusion, so the more fake investigations I pretend to be interested in conducting, the better.

My how unsurprised you will be when it is revealed that the intent I have with this investigation is just to look into an unusual experience enter the woo economy by performing unethical, but hopefully lucrative, psychic medical diagnosis.

This pseudo investigation is to pretend to explain why I can look at people and pretend to perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information after I write my fictional anecdotes. That's what it's all about.


It is funny reading your analyses...

The word is "fun", wacko "science" student Anita, not "funny". And your fictional anecdotes are far more amusing. Tell us another. :rolleyes:

GeeMack
1st February 2009, 03:40 PM
Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.


We could rehash your miserable failure with Wayne. You threw that piece of crap in here, but don't you think it's been kicked around enough to make everyone's shoes stink? But... again you demonstrate that you completely misunderstand the position you've put yourself in. You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that. Nobody has to show how you have provided inaccurate information. If you were really a science student you'd know that.

So, since you haven't been able to demonstrate any extra-sensory abilities, and you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't able or willing to do so, why don't you save the tiny shred of dignity you have left (boy, oh boy, am I going out on a limb there), and just 'fess up. Admit you've failed and we can all have a good laugh. Uh, if you haven't noticed, we're all laughing at you anyway. Wouldn't it be a much more pleasant experience if you were able to laugh with us rather than being the brunt of this horrible joke you've created?

So to review... here's the consensus at this point. Pretty much everyone here has been listening to you babbling for just short of three months now. And as far as I can tell, everyone has come to the conclusion that you're either seriously mentally ill, or that you're simply a liar.

Which do you think it is, Anita?

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 03:54 PM
[B]... if I make a lot of incorrect perceptions then it will provide evidence against my paranormal claim...
Now that's a bit better. At least you are not requiring statistically significant negative results anymore. And that only took a few weeks and pages of text.
Next, you should get your data collection cleaned up so the data can actually be analyzed. I think that Unca Yimmy and Ashles had some suggestions along those lines.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 04:01 PM
You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that. Nobody has to show how you have provided inaccurate information. If you were really a science student you'd know that.

About 20 or 30 pages ago I posted this:

So, from this point forward perhaps I should substitute for "ESP" something like "a mind control advice implanted by your mother, who is really an Illuminati agent." Thus, your [Anita's] paragraph could be rewritten as follows:

And I know that. That is why I was expressing concern that some of the Forum members were convinced that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent. We can say that it is unlikely that I have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent, or that we do not expect me to have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent, but to say that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent did not seem right with me. That's what this is about. Don't try to turn this into making it sound like I'm a bad scientist. I was just saying that we really don't know that I do not have a mind control device implanted by my mother, an Illuminati agent. And I was right about that.

We've come so far since then.

desertgal
1st February 2009, 04:47 PM
You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that.

Well, and I am sure this will included in her defense, she kinda has. She 'perceived' that Unca has vertebrae, knees, an elbow, and two wrists. She 'perceived' that another guy, whom she already knew had had heart surgery, had a scar on his chest. She "saw" bacteria in a stomach. And, lest we forget, she used her sooper power to "perceive" that Wayne has both a shoulder and an Adam's apple. :jaw-dropp

Farencue
1st February 2009, 05:42 PM
Hello everyone
This is my first ever JREF post although I have been sitting in the corner at this party since it started. The party was fun at first, it reached a climax - now I have had too much to drink and can feel a hangover coming on. I think if the party was being held at my place I would be asking people to please go home now.

This has been very educational for me, thankyou JREFers for your teaching skills, I have spent a lot of time on this thread "listening" and learning, something I did not do at school therefore I am not highly educated.

I have a question for Longtabber PE if you dont mind - as an experienced investigator what are your observations of Anita's written English considering that English is not her first language? I have noticed a few things that give me reason to agree with you that she is an out and out scammer.
Thanks again.

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 08:00 PM
I have a question for Longtabber PE if you dont mind - as an experienced investigator what are your observations of Anita's written English considering that English is not her first language? I have noticed a few things that give me reason to agree with you that she is an out and out scammer.
Thanks again.


Well, thats hard to answer because I work globally and deal with all kinds of "English" and honestly didnt look at that parameter. I didnt know it wasnt her first language either. ( and its hard to say from a blog)


I know from dealing with Europeans you can see their spelling and such. ( going to the repair "centre" to get a "tyre")

Sorry but I cant really say without meeting the subject

LONGTABBER PE
1st February 2009, 08:12 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.
:D It is funny reading your analyses. ;)
Funny. :)
Oh dear. :) I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.
There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

Locknar:
Way to go Locknar! :cheerleader1

LONGTABBER PE:
My how surprised you will be when it is revealed that the intent I have with this investigation is just to look into an unusual experience. :)
This investigation is to explain why I can look at people and perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information. That's what it's all about. :p

Well, VFF, heres the deal. I am a PhD ( Engineering) and have been doing "experiments" and reporting on custom designs since before you were born. I can recognize a farce from a mile away. I'm simply calling your hand on it.

>>>I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.

According to YOU. You wouldnt know a "scientific explanation" if it came up and hugged you. What you are doing is telling a tale.

>>>It is funny reading your analyses.

Maybe but those "analyses" have sent a lot of bad guys to jail, been proven in various courts and in my field.

>>>I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.
There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

No ( see 1 above) you are out to scam. See, you violate the basic IMRAD method of study/report writing.

You are starting from a false premise that you actually have these abilities you claim. ( putting the cart before the horse as those claims are unsubstantiated). The "M" in IMRAD is method.

Heres the first step ( which you talk around and skip) and that is to establish whether in fact you actually have an ability to study or now. ( I see the subtle inferences and know how the game is played but you arent going to skip first base here)

So, your first method is to show you have an ability- heres your test.

Get the skeptics ( or anyone but have an accredited proctor) to ( WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE) select a group of people with affidavits of conditions. Have a few bogies thrown in as well.

They select and arrange the study according to your parameters and you sit in a room and "cold" meet them. You dont see them before hand and theydont speak.

We will see in short order if you have any ability at all and that will determine the course ( if any) of the rest.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 08:32 PM
GeeMack:
We could rehash your miserable failure with Wayne. You threw that piece of crap in here, but don't you think it's been kicked around enough to make everyone's shoes stink? But... again you demonstrate that you completely misunderstand the position you've put yourself in. You, Anita, must show that you are able to provide accurate medical information. And you haven't shown that. Nobody has to show how you have provided inaccurate information. If you were really a science student you'd know that.I already know that I haven't provided any evidence in support of the paranormal claim yet. I already know that my past experiences were not witnessed or documented by skeptics or scientists and weren't made into evidence. I already know that my past experiences are only compelling to me since I and the persons who were present for a reading (usually only the persons being read) were the only ones there. I already know, I already know.

I definitely did not fail with Wayne. He wrote *a list* of his health problems which, turns out only contained a past accident which he has fully recovered from which only has the scar after it and no sensations of discomfort or other permanent damage or discomfort. That was all. Then I was fully expecting logically there to be a lot of health problems with the person but I couldn't find any no matter how hard I tried. I tuned up the "ability" to desperately try to find at least "one of those things on his list" and all I could sense was a very insignificantly tired left shoulder, and the adam's apple. So I concluded that I found nothing wrong. And, turns out, there was nothing wrong to be found. Just a scar. Which I missed. And that is not a failure. I did very well. :p
So, since you haven't been able to demonstrate any extra-sensory abilities, and you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't able or willing to do so, why don't you save the tiny shred of dignity you have left (boy, oh boy, am I going out on a limb there), and just 'fess up. Admit you've failed and we can all have a good laugh. Uh, if you haven't noticed, we're all laughing at you anyway. Wouldn't it be a much more pleasant experience if you were able to laugh with us rather than being the brunt of this horrible joke you've created?I haven't even had much chances to demonstrate any extra-sensory abilities! I've only had one chance and that was with Wayne! And he didn't have anything wrong with him! According to my perceptions the man was in beautiful health, better than average! (His heart, lungs, liver and digestive system all looked absolutely wonderful and healthy. It was a delight to see.)

But Hoooneeeyyy!!! I am most willing to demonstrate and to be put to the test! I am able to demonstrate it!!! Bring me some people with hidden health problems! I haven't failed anything! There is no joke! I perceive medical information when I look at people! Bring me some people and I will show you what I mean! :p
So to review... here's the consensus at this point. Pretty much everyone here has been listening to you babbling for just short of three months now. And as far as I can tell, everyone has come to the conclusion that you're either seriously mentally ill, or that you're simply a liar.I am neither mentally ill nor a liar! You however are very impatient. :p
Which do you think it is, Anita? Impatient? :confused:

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 08:49 PM
Well, VFF, heres the deal. I am a PhD ( Engineering) and have been doing "experiments" and reporting on custom designs since before you were born. I can recognize a farce from a mile away. I'm simply calling your hand on it.

>>>I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.

According to YOU. You wouldnt know a "scientific explanation" if it came up and hugged you. What you are doing is telling a tale.

>>>It is funny reading your analyses.

Maybe but those "analyses" have sent a lot of bad guys to jail, been proven in various courts and in my field.

>>>I'm just out to falsify a non-ability, or learn more about an ability.
There is no scam. I'm basing this investigation on my experiences that I can't explain on my own and therefore need skeptics and scientists and a study and tests.

No ( see 1 above) you are out to scam. See, you violate the basic IMRAD method of study/report writing.

You are starting from a false premise that you actually have these abilities you claim. ( putting the cart before the horse as those claims are unsubstantiated). The "M" in IMRAD is method.

Heres the first step ( which you talk around and skip) and that is to establish whether in fact you actually have an ability to study or now. ( I see the subtle inferences and know how the game is played but you arent going to skip first base here)

So, your first method is to show you have an ability- heres your test.

Get the skeptics ( or anyone but have an accredited proctor) to ( WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE) select a group of people with affidavits of conditions. Have a few bogies thrown in as well.

They select and arrange the study according to your parameters and you sit in a room and "cold" meet them. You dont see them before hand and theydont speak.

We will see in short order if you have any ability at all and that will determine the course ( if any) of the rest.

Your problem is that you know too much, probably signal detection theory and all that science. And maybe what warm reading is and the need to control for sensory leakage.
But Anita is not doing that sort of sciencey stuff, she is doing a "study", or maybe will do one eventually. In her "study", she doesn't count misses, even if the subjects are missing a limb or two. False alarms, like "something in the shoulder" don't count either. Only hits, even if they occur one time in 50 guesses, count.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 08:52 PM
Farencue:
I have a question for Longtabber PE if you dont mind - as an experienced investigator what are your observations of Anita's written English considering that English is not her first language? I have noticed a few things that give me reason to agree with you that she is an out and out scammer.
Thanks again. Hi there. Welcome to our wonderful JREF thread. We've already had this discussion before:

Miss Kitt #766 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4290360&postcount=766)
Moochie #837 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4295552&postcount=837)
UncaYimmy #838 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4295948&postcount=838)
TheSkepticCanuck #839 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4295994&postcount=839)
Moochie #846 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4296744&postcount=846)
desertgal #847 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4296759&postcount=847)

My offer still holds, that anyone who wants to call me and hear my *Swedish accent* is free to PM me and get my number. :p
Or if someone just wants to talk. Would be nice.

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 08:58 PM
I think we have your number already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFFB4xGfzRk

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 09:06 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
Sorry but I cant really say without meeting the subjectWho are you calling a subject?!
Well, VFF, heres the deal. I am a PhD ( Engineering) and have been doing "experiments" and reporting on custom designs since before you were born. I can recognize a farce from a mile away. I'm simply calling your hand on it.Wonderful! I do like an Engineer! There is no farce. I'm having a study with the skeptics hopefully this Sunday February 8 after which - unless the claim has been falsified at that study - I will arrange another study in a public area with the health questionnaires. Which should all hopefully lead to a testable more specific claim so that a test can be arranged. You are of course free to suspect a farce and you can look real hard and try to find one but I dare you since you are never going to find what is not there. :p
No ( see 1 above) you are out to scam. I assure you that I am not out to scam! You skeptics are impatient, that's all.
You are starting from a false premise that you actually have these abilities you claim. No, I am working under the assumption that it is more likely the case of unintentional cold reading or no accuracy at all.
So, your first method is to show you have an ability- heres your test. Get the skeptics ( or anyone but have an accredited proctor) to ( WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE) select a group of people with affidavits of conditions. Have a few bogies thrown in as well. They select and arrange the study according to your parameters and you sit in a room and "cold" meet them. You dont see them before hand and theydont speak. We will see in short order if you have any ability at all and that will determine the course ( if any) of the rest. But I would love to do that!

*I like the way you don't use these, ' , in your words. Like dont instead of don't. But since you are an Engineer Ph.D. I can only admire you and conclude that your disuse of those just makes you seem mysterious. Like you know something. You're cool either way. Or, youre.* :p

Jeff Corey:
I think we have your number already. Then why don't you give me a call? :p That way you could ask me questions and I couldn't *avoid questions* or *hide* or what ever you people think I am doing here. You could ask me anything you like, and post it all here. Would be productive. UncaYimmy and me always were more productive speaking live over a chat. :)

GeeMack
1st February 2009, 09:08 PM
I definitely did not fail with Wayne. He wrote *a list* of his health problems which, turns out only contained a past accident which he has fully recovered from which only has the scar after it and no sensations of discomfort or other permanent damage or discomfort. That was all. Then I was fully expecting logically there to be a lot of health problems with the person but I couldn't find any no matter how hard I tried. I tuned up the "ability" to desperately try to find at least "one of those things on his list" and all I could sense was a very insignificantly tired left shoulder, and the adam's apple. So I concluded that I found nothing wrong. And, turns out, there was nothing wrong to be found. Just a scar. Which I missed. And that is not a failure. I did very well.


He had one medical issue. You completely missed it. You failed. 100%. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt by considering that you might have a mental illness, Anita. You can fix mentally ill. But it's looking more and more like several of these other people are right in their assessment. Maybe you really are nothing but a side show freak wannabe, a simple lying carnie.

Farencue
1st February 2009, 09:12 PM
Thankyou Longtabber PE for your reply.
And thankyou for the welcome to the thread Anita. I looked at the posts you referred me to and while I appreciate that you may have already had a discussion on English being your second language, that is not the issue I was intending to raise with Longtabber.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 09:12 PM
GeeMack:
He had one medical issue. You completely missed it. You failed. 100%. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt by considering that you might have a mental illness, Anita. You can fix mentally ill. But it's looking more and more like several of these other people are right in their assessment. Maybe you really are nothing but a side show freak wannabe, a simple lying carnie. My paranormal claim then is not to detect the scar after an injured diaphragm. I do not consider having a mental illness because I didn't detect a particular scar! It was not even consistent with my claim! How rude! Wait until I've read more people and actually claimed to detect health information and then we can have a field day discussing the implications of the results! ;)

Jonquill
1st February 2009, 09:15 PM
Farencue said.
"I have noticed a few things that give me reason to agree with you that she is an out and out scammer."

Welcome Farencue.

What are the things that you have noticed?

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 09:19 PM
GeeMack:
My paranormal claim then is not to detect the scar after an injured diaphragm...
But you claimed to have detected a scar from a vasectomy.
And next, a man with three buttocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqosS6DBwhA

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 09:23 PM
Jeff Corey:
But you claimed to have detected a scar from a vasectomy.
And next, a man with three buttocks. Not all scars were created equal. And... what? :confused:

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 09:31 PM
Sorry, did you miss it? Consider the dual rectum implication...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqosS6DBwhA

Don't you have a class tomorrow at 8:30 AM? Better get some sleep if you want to maintain your 4.0 average.

VisionFromFeeling
1st February 2009, 09:38 PM
Jeff Corey:
Don't you have a class tomorrow at 8:30 AM? Better get some sleep if you want to maintain your 4.0 average. No it's the other way around. In order to maintain the GPA I'm staying up late. Have four homeworks to do. So I'll be here at the same time.

Farencue
1st February 2009, 09:43 PM
Hello Jonquil
This is from Anita's webpage in the Challenge section:

December 10 2008 - I've found a local skeptics group and joined them. I attend my first meeting with them on December 29th. Although I am a paranormal claimant I can't wait to enter a room full of skeptics! I look forward to skepticism and critique and expect to learn a lot from it, also I will be giving off free demonstrations of what I can do! (It is always free.)

Bolding mine but I smell scam. Also from the challenge section:

January 27 2009 - I had asked the representative of a mall whether I could have the study there and the answer was negative, which is somewhat what I expected since the subject of my study is controversial. I am now asking the City of Charlotte Parks and Recreation about whether my planned study is in accordance with law and whether to obtain a permit to have the study in a public area of Charlotte. I do not expect any shop- or restaurant owner to allow a paranormal study at their premises. In the way that it is designed the study more resembles a survey than a psychic reading. My study is more like asking people off the street, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?", than seating them by a table and reading their palm and telling their fortune. There is no speaking between me and the volunteers, the answers in the health questionnaires by the volunteers remains entirely anonymous and not linked to their person, and the volunteers never find out what my perceptions of them were. And no money is involved of course (and never will be). So, how I see it, the volunteers are at no risk of harm by volunteering for the study. It is not a display or a practice of paranormal abilities. It is a study, designed to falsify a paranormal claim if one does not exist, and, if the results of the study allow, a more elaborate test can later be done and under even more controlled and even more careful circumstances.

Bolding mine but trying to wade through the wordowaffle is hard work for a beginner such as myself. I would just like to clarify though Anita, was the reading of the now famous Wayne at a restaurant/pizza joint? Were you "giving off free demonstrations" as you stated on your website when you sat with Wayne or was it part of the study? You must have been surprised that the the restaurant owner didnt object?
Also Anita why did you go against everyones advice not to delay proceedings by writing to the parks people if you yourself dont believe there will be any harm to volunteers in doing the study?

Jonquill, I notice that Anita uses a lot of what I call "Americanisms" in her written speech, I thought it unusual for someone who has not been in the country a good while. An example of an "Americanism" is "you bet" along with a few others but of course I could be wrong.

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 09:46 PM
Anita,
In all seriousness, you need more sleep and less time wasted here if you want to learn the hard science you are trying to master.
Bon chance.

Jonquill
1st February 2009, 09:53 PM
I think Anita has been in America for a couple of years, so I guess she would start using the same expressions as the locals.

Wayne was a informal volunteer at a skeptics club meeting that she attended.

Farencue
1st February 2009, 09:54 PM
I foresee Anita's future in this equation:

Greta Alexander x Dr Leon E Curry = Anita Ikonen
loved and revered by fire fighters, police officers, the science community, the medical community and the gullible general public.
Oh, just out of interest did anyone know that Dr Leon E Curry is going to make an appearance with Sylvia Browne?

Its a small world after all......

Jonquill
1st February 2009, 09:58 PM
If Anita had the powers she claims in her website it would take about 5 minutes to convince a room full of skeptics of her abilites.

It's like all the paranormal powers that people claim to have, if they did have them it would be bleedin' obvious to everybody.

TheClaw
1st February 2009, 10:01 PM
Without even posting here, it takes a long time each day just to keep up with this thread! I'm learning so much, though, I don't want to stop (VfF -- I wish I could quit you).

Anita, does it bother you at all that no one here (and I really mean I don't think even one person on this thread besides you) thinks that your study has a good design, or thinks that you might have a paranormal ability, or agrees with you that you have never been verifiably wrong in your perceptions regarding your main claim? I suppose you could say that the volunteers you got from FACT think your study is valuable, but unless they're reading this thread I doubt they could have anywhere near the kind of understanding we have of your claim and proposed methods.

Seriously, is there even one person? If so and you're just lurking, could you speak up?

Jeff Corey
1st February 2009, 10:04 PM
I think Anita has been in America for a couple of years, so I guess she would start using the same expressions as the locals...
Not only that, but a number of Europeans who I have met here are quite fluent in English from courses they take in school, but also they are familiar with American English from the cinema and the telly..
"Make my day."
"Deese youtes..."

Farencue
1st February 2009, 10:08 PM
Jonquill, are you English lol?
My Norwegian friend has been here in Australia for a very long time and she still hasnt picked up "Strine" - in fact she is "delightful" every time she tries an Aussie way of speaking because she usually gets it mixed up.
I know Anita read Wayne at the skeptics meeting, but I was of the impression the meetings are held at a pizza place.

Jonquill
1st February 2009, 10:16 PM
I think you might be right about it being a pizza place.

"January's meeting will be at Upper Crust Pizza. Dinner at 6 PM and the meeting at 7PM"
http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/calendar/9581263/

No I'm Australian, but my parents are English.

Farencue
1st February 2009, 10:29 PM
Jonquill, for the purposes of this thread I will count your parents being English as a HIT.;)

highflyertoo
1st February 2009, 10:36 PM
Hello VisionFromFeeling

Do you believe '' you '' are the real deal ?

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 11:01 PM
If you read her first post and webpage. She had already contacted IIG ( according to her) and on her page she has "experimented" with her "abilities" so she came here already fully engaged in the scam. This board is mainly for PR purposes.
PR for what? The thing with the IIG has been going since July 2007.

She did her "test" in Nov and didnt miss anything ( according to her)
Did she really do those tests or is she lying?

If she has the ability to lie with impunity, which she does with 95% of the stuff she tells us, why don't we ever hear what we want to hear? To me that's the key for me to pick delusion. Every single time she has the opportunity to lie with impunity, she instead says things that damage her credibility.

I dont accept that she never self tested before. ( assuming she really believed in her ability)
Why would she lie about it? Why even come here at all? Here website as it was when I first saw it was ripe for attracting woo. Everything since then has hurt her.

So, she willingly devises "tests" that give her the "proof" she wanted. She is throwing around the term "scientific" in hopes that it will give her credibility and wants to use it.
If she's a scam artist, shouldn't she be trying to give us the "proof" that we want?

She came in here hoping to bamboozle just like con men often let a few 'marks" win to give their scam legitimacy.
Right. Uri Geller was smart enough to say that his skills were unreliable and offered that as proof it was real. But he still left a truckload of bent spoons in his wake.

Where are Anita's bent spoons?

Also, if she was all about "legitimacy" and science, why not go to the psychology department and get them to help her. No, she goes to a "skeptic" group. ( she needs skeptic buy in)
To protect her fantasy. It may also be tied to her very real fear about not wanting to share the Nobel Prize. That first came up with Anita in a private chat with me. The whole thing about the Nobel was surreal.

This is a well thought out scheme complete with an agenda, plan,goal and marketing ploy attached
This scheme is 18 months old now. None of what she did was necessary. She hasn't once approached the woos of the world.

Just to be clear, you've read all 2,000+ plus posts in this thread plus the moderated thread and her other posts here about ghosts and talk shows? And you've read everything on her website as well as the IIG protocol document with the negotiations about the rules? And you're saying that everything there fits into her pulling off a well-thought out scam?

Did you read the MDC thread with The Professor? He was a fraud, but his tactics were masterful. He garnered an incredible amount of publicity with those groups already predisposed to believe his shtick. Everything he did there was calculated to tantalize and provoke reactions that actually helped his cause. He as masterful at evading. When he couldn't evade, he would still try to find a way or just say what he really meant to say.

On many of the points Anita should evade, she simply repeats herself with increasing levels of seemingly genuine frustration when should could have lied to avoid the confrontation in the first place.

In order for me to think "intentional fraud" I would have to believe that she is an incredible actress and a masterful schemer who plans in advance. She must be someone who only pretends to make stupid mistake after stupid mistake knowing that the toughest audience out there won't be fooled. She must be incredibly patient because she will always deliberately choose not to lie when it would benefit her in the short run because she knows in the long run that it will work to her benefit. And despite writing tens of thousands of words, nobody has seen any inkling of the profit making aspect other than an off-hand comment that someone might pay $5 for a sketch of her hand or want a baby in the womb sketched.

Throughout all this she keeps bringing up crazy ideas that have nothing to do with her medical diagnosing claims (finding Bigfoot, communicating with insects, detecting chemicals and bacteria, talking to ghosts, not really being a human but an incarnation of a dwarf star).

All the while attending college at age 26 and having just three friends on Facebook, none of whom attend her college.

That's too big of a stretch for me. In isolation I can see "fraud" in numerous places. But in far too many places I have to say, "what an odd choice for someone who is a fraud." In the grand scheme of things it would have to truly be a Grand Scheme of monumental proportions with little to show for it.

I will suggest again that you chat with her personally. She's open for it. I am genuinely interested to hear what you think when you've had a chance to interact with her.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 11:31 PM
Jonquill, I notice that Anita uses a lot of what I call "Americanisms" in her written speech, I thought it unusual for someone who has not been in the country a good while. An example of an "Americanism" is "you bet" along with a few others but of course I could be wrong.

Allow me to set myself up as an expert on this. My wife is a Hungarian citizen with English as a second language. One of my best friend of the last 10 years has English as a third language. Living here in America I have dated citizens of Luxembourg, Germany, Italy, Slovakia and The Netherlands. For all of them English was a second or third language. I have had (or currently have) multiple people working for me from Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Russia. I currently have clients from Romania and Slovakia. I have spent lots of time with numerous European visitors for whom English is a second or third language. I have had two other Hungarians living in my home for a combined total of 15 months. Both had never been to the USA before and were really getting their first opportunities at English. I have visited Hungary and met many people with English as a second or third language.

This means dozens of people, thousands of hours of conversation, and countless e-mails and reports. I make my living with the written and spoken word. I'm also very perceptive and notice things that many people don't.

All of them used "Americanisms" including a 15 year old girl from Hungary who visited for a summer, and she had trouble with English since she was still learning it. Typically their grammar is above average Americans due to the formal teaching. Their punctuation, however, is incorrect more often than with native speakers. Sometimes they use odd constructions that are perfectly legitimate but almost never used by native speakers.

With Anita I have seen everything I expect and nothing I don't expect from a college educated European using English as a second language. I *really* hate to ask someone to take my word as an expert, but it would take me 10,000 words to even attempt to prove my point.

Anita is a common European name. Ikonen is a Swedish surname. We know that "Anita Ikonen" attends UNC. It's settled as far as I am concerned.

Uncayimmy
1st February 2009, 11:59 PM
GeeMack:
My paranormal claim then is not to detect the scar after an injured diaphragm. I do not consider having a mental illness because I didn't detect a particular scar! It was not even consistent with my claim! How rude! Wait until I've read more people and actually claimed to detect health information and then we can have a field day discussing the implications of the results! ;)

This is a prime example of the fundamental flaw with your study. You detected a scar in the heart guy (you also knew about his heart surgery in advance). Did that mean you could detect scars? With Wayne you missed seeing the scar, so now you're saying you can't detect scars? Or does this mean you can detect chest scars with 50% accuracy?

Please concentrate on the primary goal of your study, which is to prove to everyone else that there is even anything worth studying.

Anybody know of a good statistician on the forums? We need to get some solid numbers going.

Akhenaten
2nd February 2009, 01:09 AM
Ave atque vale

LONGTABBER PE
2nd February 2009, 03:39 AM
LONGTABBER PE:
Who are you calling a subject?!
Wonderful! I do like an Engineer! There is no farce. I'm having a study with the skeptics hopefully this Sunday February 8 after which - unless the claim has been falsified at that study - I will arrange another study in a public area with the health questionnaires. Which should all hopefully lead to a testable more specific claim so that a test can be arranged. You are of course free to suspect a farce and you can look real hard and try to find one but I dare you since you are never going to find what is not there. :p
I assure you that I am not out to scam! You skeptics are impatient, that's all.
No, I am working under the assumption that it is more likely the case of unintentional cold reading or no accuracy at all.
But I would love to do that!

*I like the way you don't use these, ' , in your words. Like dont instead of don't. But since you are an Engineer Ph.D. I can only admire you and conclude that your disuse of those just makes you seem mysterious. Like you know something. You're cool either way. Or, youre.* :p



>>>Who are you calling a subject?!

Why dont you "read" me and tell me LOL

>>>Wonderful! I do like an Engineer! There is no farce. I'm having a study with the skeptics hopefully this Sunday February 8 after which - unless the claim has been falsified at that study - I will arrange another study in a public area with the health questionnaires. Which should all hopefully lead to a testable more specific claim so that a test can be arranged.

"The wheels on the bus go round and round......" Second verse, same as the first......

>>>You are of course free to suspect a farce and you can look real hard and try to find one but I dare you since you are never going to find what is not there. :p

I've heard that before

>>>I assure you that I am not out to scam! You skeptics are impatient, that's all.

Yes you are, now what is your real end goal?

>>>I like the way you don't use these, ' , in your words. Like dont instead of don't. But since you are an Engineer Ph.D. I can only admire you and conclude that your disuse of those just makes you seem mysterious. Like you know something. You're cool either way. Or, youre

I'm glad you like it. We call it engineering shorthand. And I do know "something".

Baron Samedi
2nd February 2009, 03:44 AM
UncaYimmy:
Alright, UncaYimmy challenged me. Let's see... if I learn that I detect a certain ailment only 1 in 3 times when it exists in people, and the test requires me to find it ten times, then we need at least 30 people with the ailment and I just might be able to find ten claimed perceptions. At least 30 people means a minimum of 30 are required. These 30 people will of course be mixed in among a lot of other people who do not have the ailment, something I did not mention, but the statement I made is true anyway. What is the right answer?


Anita, since no one's touched this comment, I'll bite. You have 30 people with condition X, and you need to identify 10 out of 10 people with the condition correctly. Just to get an idea, roughly now many people without the condition do you think should be in the pool?

And is 1/3 your claimed detection rate for scar tissue?

LONGTABBER PE
2nd February 2009, 04:27 AM
PR for what? The thing with the IIG has been going since July 2007.


Did she really do those tests or is she lying?

If she has the ability to lie with impunity, which she does with 95% of the stuff she tells us, why don't we ever hear what we want to hear? To me that's the key for me to pick delusion. Every single time she has the opportunity to lie with impunity, she instead says things that damage her credibility.


Why would she lie about it? Why even come here at all? Here website as it was when I first saw it was ripe for attracting woo. Everything since then has hurt her.


If she's a scam artist, shouldn't she be trying to give us the "proof" that we want?


Right. Uri Geller was smart enough to say that his skills were unreliable and offered that as proof it was real. But he still left a truckload of bent spoons in his wake.

Where are Anita's bent spoons?


To protect her fantasy. It may also be tied to her very real fear about not wanting to share the Nobel Prize. That first came up with Anita in a private chat with me. The whole thing about the Nobel was surreal.


This scheme is 18 months old now. None of what she did was necessary. She hasn't once approached the woos of the world.

Just to be clear, you've read all 2,000+ plus posts in this thread plus the moderated thread and her other posts here about ghosts and talk shows? And you've read everything on her website as well as the IIG protocol document with the negotiations about the rules? And you're saying that everything there fits into her pulling off a well-thought out scam?

Did you read the MDC thread with The Professor? He was a fraud, but his tactics were masterful. He garnered an incredible amount of publicity with those groups already predisposed to believe his shtick. Everything he did there was calculated to tantalize and provoke reactions that actually helped his cause. He as masterful at evading. When he couldn't evade, he would still try to find a way or just say what he really meant to say.

On many of the points Anita should evade, she simply repeats herself with increasing levels of seemingly genuine frustration when should could have lied to avoid the confrontation in the first place.

In order for me to think "intentional fraud" I would have to believe that she is an incredible actress and a masterful schemer who plans in advance. She must be someone who only pretends to make stupid mistake after stupid mistake knowing that the toughest audience out there won't be fooled. She must be incredibly patient because she will always deliberately choose not to lie when it would benefit her in the short run because she knows in the long run that it will work to her benefit. And despite writing tens of thousands of words, nobody has seen any inkling of the profit making aspect other than an off-hand comment that someone might pay $5 for a sketch of her hand or want a baby in the womb sketched.

Throughout all this she keeps bringing up crazy ideas that have nothing to do with her medical diagnosing claims (finding Bigfoot, communicating with insects, detecting chemicals and bacteria, talking to ghosts, not really being a human but an incarnation of a dwarf star).

All the while attending college at age 26 and having just three friends on Facebook, none of whom attend her college.

That's too big of a stretch for me. In isolation I can see "fraud" in numerous places. But in far too many places I have to say, "what an odd choice for someone who is a fraud." In the grand scheme of things it would have to truly be a Grand Scheme of monumental proportions with little to show for it.

I will suggest again that you chat with her personally. She's open for it. I am genuinely interested to hear what you think when you've had a chance to interact with her.

>>>PR for what? The thing with the IIG has been going since July 2007.

Dont know honestly but I dont have to know "what" an agenda is to know there is in fact one. Sometimes you have to use the Sherlock method and eliminate items and whats left is the truth. In this case, as you state, its been going 18 months and nothing has even been started. That alone rules out legitimacy.

>>>Did she really do those tests or is she lying?

My personal opinion? She is probably lying

>>>If she has the ability to lie with impunity, which she does with 95% of the stuff she tells us, why don't we ever hear what we want to hear? To me that's the key for me to pick delusion. Every single time she has the opportunity to lie with impunity, she instead says things that damage her credibility.

simple, what "you" ( ie the people here) want to hear is the truth supported by facts and data. No con in the history of crime would do that. So, the truth is impossible- holding her own against intense scrutiny could set her up to get caught in her own words so all thats left is to lie.

We used to have this old saying about describing cons. Q: What is your name, A: Green.

They gave us an answer alright but totally useless and irrelevant.

>>>Why would she lie about it? Why even come here at all? Here website as it was when I first saw it was ripe for attracting woo. Everything since then has hurt her.

Dont know yet but her coming here and starting this is as accidental as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Maybe hurt her here but I still hold that this board is just a ways to a yet to be determined end

>>>If she's a scam artist, shouldn't she be trying to give us the "proof" that we want?

No, where would the fun be in that? Plus she cant give you what doesnt exist.( she knows that) Actually, she is using the people here to hone her skills. What better place to come to see what doesnt work.

>>>Where are Anita's bent spoons?


Dont know, maybe back home

>>>To protect her fantasy. It may also be tied to her very real fear about not wanting to share the Nobel Prize. That first came up with Anita in a private chat with me. The whole thing about the Nobel was surreal.

That tells me theres a end goal.

>>>Just to be clear, you've read all 2,000+ plus posts in this thread plus the moderated thread and her other posts here about ghosts and talk shows? And you've read everything on her website as well as the IIG protocol document with the negotiations about the rules? And you're saying that everything there fits into her pulling off a well-thought out scam?

I've read this thread, a portion of the other, her site and the posted docs but not her posts on other threads. Yes, I am saying that.

Pup
2nd February 2009, 05:38 AM
One thing that's been bugging me...

I may have missed it in all the text, but has it come out yet, whether the tired shoulder was ever mentioned to Wayne himself? And did he confirm or deny whether one shoulder was tired?

Even though it's only a 50-50 thing (right or left), it was a definite positive identification of a health issue. If I thought I could identify health issues, seems to me I'd be dying to know if he actually did feel a difference in one shoulder and whether I'd identified the correct shoulder. It might have been too minor for him to mention spontaneously, but if one shoulder felt more tired than the other, he would at least be aware of which one if asked.

Of course, it would be way too easy to coax an answer from a compliant subject, either obviously: "I'm sensing a tiredness in your left shoulder. Is that correct?" Or more subtly: "Something about your shoulder... it seems tired" (wait for subject to look toward one shoulder or move his arm to test it) "Yes, your left shoulder...".

I wonder if Wayne wasn't compliant enough to go along? Or Anita lost her nerve and didn't want to risk putting a binary answer to the test?

By the way, my father was a paranoid schizophrenic and also a scientist (worked for NASA back in the 1960s), so I've seen combinations of logic and irrationality. If we're placing bets, I'd put my money on delusion rather than deliberate scam. Is there like a pool? When is the winner going to be announced? :D

tsig
2nd February 2009, 05:42 AM
GeeMack:
I already know that I haven't provided any evidence in support of the paranormal claim yet. I already know that my past experiences were not witnessed or documented by skeptics or scientists and weren't made into evidence. I already know that my past experiences are only compelling to me since I and the persons who were present for a reading (usually only the persons being read) were the only ones there. I already know, I already know.

I definitely did not fail with Wayne. He wrote *a list* of his health problems which, turns out only contained a past accident which he has fully recovered from which only has the scar after it and no sensations of discomfort or other permanent damage or discomfort. That was all. Then I was fully expecting logically there to be a lot of health problems with the person but I couldn't find any no matter how hard I tried. I tuned up the "ability" to desperately try to find at least "one of those things on his list" and all I could sense was a very insignificantly tired left shoulder, and the adam's apple. So I concluded that I found nothing wrong. And, turns out, there was nothing wrong to be found. Just a scar. Which I missed. And that is not a failure. I did very well. :p
I haven't even had much chances to demonstrate any extra-sensory abilities! I've only had one chance and that was with Wayne! And he didn't have anything wrong with him! According to my perceptions the man was in beautiful health, better than average! (His heart, lungs, liver and digestive system all looked absolutely wonderful and healthy. It was a delight to see.)

But Hoooneeeyyy!!! I am most willing to demonstrate and to be put to the test! I am able to demonstrate it!!! Bring me some people with hidden health problems! I haven't failed anything! There is no joke! I perceive medical information when I look at people! Bring me some people and I will show you what I mean! :p
I am neither mentally ill nor a liar! You however are very impatient. :p
Impatient? :confused:

As worried as you are about being legal you should watch those medical claims. It is against the law to practice medicine without a license.

If you live in any leased space you may be breaking your lease by doing paranormal experiments there. You should get permission.

highflyertoo
2nd February 2009, 05:58 AM
>>>PR for what? The thing with the IIG has been going since July 2007.

Dont know honestly but I dont have to know "what" an agenda is to know there is in fact one. Sometimes you have to use the Sherlock method and eliminate items and whats left is the truth. In this case, as you state, its been going 18 months and nothing has even been started. That alone rules out legitimacy.

>>>Did she really do those tests or is she lying?

My personal opinion? She is probably lying

>>>If she has the ability to lie with impunity, which she does with 95% of the stuff she tells us, why don't we ever hear what we want to hear? To me that's the key for me to pick delusion. Every single time she has the opportunity to lie with impunity, she instead says things that damage her credibility.

simple, what "you" ( ie the people here) want to hear is the truth supported by facts and data. No con in the history of crime would do that. So, the truth is impossible- holding her own against intense scrutiny could set her up to get caught in her own words so all thats left is to lie.

We used to have this old saying about describing cons. Q: What is your name, A: Green.

They gave us an answer alright but totally useless and irrelevant.

>>>Why would she lie about it? Why even come here at all? Here website as it was when I first saw it was ripe for attracting woo. Everything since then has hurt her.

Dont know yet but her coming here and starting this is as accidental as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Maybe hurt her here but I still hold that this board is just a ways to a yet to be determined end

>>>If she's a scam artist, shouldn't she be trying to give us the "proof" that we want?

No, where would the fun be in that? Plus she cant give you what doesnt exist.( she knows that) Actually, she is using the people here to hone her skills. What better place to come to see what doesnt work.

>>>Where are Anita's bent spoons?


Dont know, maybe back home

>>>To protect her fantasy. It may also be tied to her very real fear about not wanting to share the Nobel Prize. That first came up with Anita in a private chat with me. The whole thing about the Nobel was surreal.

That tells me theres a end goal.

>>>Just to be clear, you've read all 2,000+ plus posts in this thread plus the moderated thread and her other posts here about ghosts and talk shows? And you've read everything on her website as well as the IIG protocol document with the negotiations about the rules? And you're saying that everything there fits into her pulling off a well-thought out scam?

I've read this thread, a portion of the other, her site and the posted docs but not her posts on other threads. Yes, I am saying that.
I too believe that she is not the real deal . 18 months and not even made a start after coming out of the supernatural closet .

FAKE ALL OVER like Uri and Sylvia .

I to am in the process of revealing the supernatural, Yet my personal deadline is only a few months . The 18 months wait is nothing more than fraudulent limbo .

Not impressed .

Belz...
2nd February 2009, 06:00 AM
Are you sure? So if I go to a public street anyway, and do this, no one is going to come to stop me and get me in trouble? Are you sure about this? *I just don't want to break the law.*

Look it up.

my morals are pretty high.

Sure, Vision, whatever you say.

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 06:05 AM
Are you sure? So if I go to a public street anyway, and do this, no one is going to come to stop me and get me in trouble? Are you sure about this? *I just don't want to break the law.*
Look it up.

It's already been looked up for her. Her "concern" about the law is just another smokescreen. She's been bending other laws for years. :rolleyes:

my morals are pretty high.

Sure, Vision, whatever you say.

She keeps saying that. Protesting too much.

GeeMack
2nd February 2009, 06:16 AM
I foresee Anita's future in this equation:

Greta Alexander x Dr Leon E Curry = Anita Ikonen
loved and revered by fire fighters, police officers, the science community, the medical community and the gullible general public.
Oh, just out of interest did anyone know that Dr Leon E Curry is going to make an appearance with Sylvia Browne?

Its a small world after all......


I want to see Greta Alexander make an appearance with Sylvia Browne. :eye-poppi

Cuddles
2nd February 2009, 07:34 AM
OK, I've kind of been skipping over the last few pages, so sorry if this has already been said. There are two points about this 0-5 scale and percentage hits that are rather serious problems. Firstly, the scale as it stands makes it extremely difficult for Anita to fail. If she picks 3 on everything, then the average score is 70%. This makes the "percentage hit" pretty much useless as a measure, since what actually needs to be measured is the difference between the base 70% and the achieved score. Note that the score from picking randomly would be lower (I haven't bothered calculating it, but I'd assume it would be 50%). However, it's not success above chance that matters here, it's success above someone trying to intelligently cheat the system that is more relevant.

A more sensible scoring system would be:
If both pick the same number, it's a hit.
If the numbers are different by 1, it's a partial hit.
If the numbers are different by more than 1, it's a miss.

This would be by no means perfect, but it could at least serve as preliminary measure of whether these "perceptions" are even close.

However, there is a bigger problem with this scale as used in the study that probably makes the whole thing pointless. That is what the scores actually mean. A "0" is taken to mean that the person does not suffer from that ailment. Not a problem. But what does a "5" mean? Most people would take this to mean that the ailment is about as serious as it could possibly be, probably meaning hospitalisation or at least chronic illness and probably confined to home. How many people suffering like that are going to be wandering around a park and willing to give up their time to answer a questionnaire? A "4" is less serious but, again, you're unlikely to find many people who would rate themselves as that ill just taking a stroll outside.

What does that leave us with? Well, on Anitas percentage scale that means it's impossible for her to score less than 60%, and all she would need to do is guess 1 or 2 for each one and she'd be pretty much guaranteed an average of around 80%. On my revised scoring she'd still get 1/4 hits and 1/2 near misses.

The thing is, the scale in itself is not necessarily flawed. However, it only works if ailments are evenly distributed over the whole scale. If you start of with a biased subset then the final score will be much higher, and you will almost certainly get a result that will be interpreted as "Something interesting requiring further investigation", even if that is not at all the case. Note that this applies both ways, and not just in the park. A study with the skeptics' group will suffer the same bias towards healthy people, while a study in a hospital, for example, will have the population biased the other way.

Moochie
2nd February 2009, 07:43 AM
Either Anita can acquire information about other people's medical conditions by some sort of extra-sensory ability, or she can't.

If she can, she is wholly incapable of convincing another single soul that it might be true. Perhaps everyone else in this discussion has sub-par communication skills... or Anita has. Or possibly she's just too stupid to understand and to make herself understood.

The trouble is, to those already committed to woo and who may be desperately flailing around for someone like VfF, all the writings here and elsewhere will probably be enough to convince them to seek her out. And if our hunches here are correct, after establishing (on the flimsiest of "evidence") that VfF does have a mystical ability to make diagnoses, offering her victims clients prescriptions for whatever ails them cannot be far behind.

<snip>


M.

skeen
2nd February 2009, 07:52 AM
Anita intends to use chance and probability to her advantage. She fails to realize that any of us can do this; she cannot demonstrate something that we cannot do. Essentially, that's all she needs to do: do something that no-one else can do.

Unfortunately for her, there's nothing that she can do that we can't (except escape logic).

I have to repeat, that this is the easiest thing in the world to test. As someone said, merely get 5 skeptics in a room, some of whom have ailments detectable as according to Anita.

We can even tell Anita what ailments are in the room. All she has to do is pick the person for said ailment. And viola! Sorted. Done. Finished.

I know this won't push this process forward at all, Anita has an awful excuse for everything. I mean, she is essentially doing a study for an ability which has not been established.

I understand that it was Anita that came up with this whole "study" idea - does anyone even agree that this would get anyone anywhere? I say we push her toward a very simple test; it would save a hell of a lot of time. But she won't do it. Or she'll screw it up.

"But I'm trying! There's nothing more I can do!" Silly woman.

al_capone_junior
2nd February 2009, 08:07 AM
Weather you conduct the test doesn't matter, the fact that you talked about it with skeptics gives you street cred with the woos.

"The psychic that Randi couldn't debunk" has a nice ring,no?

Oops. I stand corrected. :D

I've now read the entirety of the moderated thread and most of the new posts from yesterday and this morning. Keeps getting funnier every day. :D

al

Belz...
2nd February 2009, 08:14 AM
So, Anita... how are you going to become a great scientist if you can't even design a simple test protocol ?

Moochie
2nd February 2009, 08:21 AM
Its a safe bet its one or the other and right now ( based on the thread and her site) its a coin flip.

Its true a persons education/intellect has no bearing on whether or not they are delusional. That said, in my opinion, looking at the whole of the parts, she is scamming.

I refer to Jaspers criteria for a delusion

>>>certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

If you accept VfF's words as true she doesnt have an "absolute conviction" but wants to "prove" it to herself ( and everyone else)- she is trying the "Kirk Solution" in the Kobayashi Maru to make the tests produce what she wants ( going against incorrigibility) and hiding in the ambiguity of falsity of content.

Her own words and site ( if you believe them) go against anything that could be construed as clinical delusion.

For the above reasons, I dont believe its her "ego" that will prohibit her but the effect on her end goals that will.

To those interested, check out the first item at:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/index.html

It's about a doctor in the States who had her physician's license revoked when it was found that she was profoundly delusional. Among other things, she's an ardent proponent of "vaccination causes autism." Click on the "transcript of her suspension hearing" -- it makes for fascination reading.

The link downloads a PDF of the transcript.


M.

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 08:23 AM
I've read this thread, a portion of the other, her site and the posted docs but not her posts on other threads.

You offer a compelling argument in favor of a deliberate scam over delusion. Of course, as you said, the jury is still out. As well, it's also possible that we are looking at a combination: a delusional person attempting a deliberate scam. If Anita truly believes that she is as extraordinary as she claims, then it isn't impossible that she would attempt to market herself.

I think, though, to get a complete picture, one has to read all her claims. It's all these, along with this thread, that led Unca, myself, and others to lean towards delusional.

Ghost Experiences (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4247220#post4247220)

As well, there is the whole "white dwarf star" nonsense. I keep going back to that. It all may be part of a scam - but to write to the managers of a forum, and complain that she can't join because she isn't "human"-that's just delusional.

I think the tentative beginnings of your "end result" might be here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4262369#post4262369), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130245&highlight=Mary+Occhino).

Whichever it is that Anita is doing, as you said, only time will tell.

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 08:37 AM
The trouble is, to those already committed to woo and who may be desperately flailing around for someone like VfF, all the writings here and elsewhere will probably be enough to convince them to seek her out. And if our hunches here are correct, after establishing (on the flimsiest of "evidence") that VfF does have a mystical ability to make diagnoses, offering her victims clients prescriptions for whatever ails them cannot be far behind.

<snip>


M.

I agree. And this has been one of my concerns all along.

When I was working my way through college, I was employed by a regulatory board-a state board of dental examiners, to be specific. One of our licensees, a pediatric dentist, developed bipolar disorder. The board did everything they could, within their power, to allow the doctor to keep his license-he had to agree to treatment, to stay on his medications, to submit to weekly urine tests, etc, etc. In the end, he refused to follow the agreement he had reached with the board, and his license was ultimately revoked. Once he went off the meds, and stopped treatment, during the period between the initial disciplinary agreement and the revocation, the effect on his patients was traumatic. As well, it destroyed his own life. It was devastating. And that was someone who was 'reined in' by the power of the board.

(I wish I had a copy of the revocation hearing transcript. It was like this thread, only with teeth.)

Imagine the damage Anita could inflict, on others and herself, unleashed and unregulated. She yammers on about this waiver and that disclaimer, but, in the end, those protect HER legally. They surely don't protect her victims clients from grief, distress, or worse. And this isn't akin to Sylvia Browne advising l-e-c-i-t-h-i-n. Technically, Anita is already violating the law. If she steps up her 'diagnosing', she could be looking at criminal charges.

Not only unethical, but scary.

Locknar
2nd February 2009, 09:12 AM
Anita intends to use chance and probability to her advantage. She fails to realize that any of us can do this; she cannot demonstrate something that we cannot do.True enough; perhaps someone in this thread could, using Anita's protocol & scoring criteria, conduct their own "study" and post results.

Oh wait, that won't work because of all the time required to gather the appropriate local, State and Federal permissions necessary...

So, Anita... how are you going to become a great scientist if you can't even design a simple test protocol ?Well...none of us are "brilliant undergraduate students taking the hardest classes the school has to offer and maintaining a 4.0 GPA." (to paraphrase)

Clearly those in this thread that are "professional scientists" of varying education levels have been humbled by this unassuming undergraduate student...can the Nobel Prize truly be far off? Perhaps her school will forgo the rest of her undergraduate studies and post graduate work, and award her a PhD outright?

Moochie
2nd February 2009, 09:41 AM
Cant say ( not enough evidence yet) but given the level of effort ( a website, all the postings at boards[ marketing] and time invested) it suggests to me that there is an end and it has some form of payoff attached.

Could be ego, could be a field study for a psychology thesis, could be the next "great" woo thing ( with money at the end)

This had occurred to me earlier, too. It seems as though she's testing someone's credulity.


M.

Moochie
2nd February 2009, 09:49 AM
<snip>

This investigation is to explain why I can look at people and perceive medical images and felt information and why it appears to correlate to actual health information. That's what it's all about. :p

No, it isn't. There are so many holes in your story that I'm wondering whether you're Swiss rather than Swedish. :)


M.

Agatha
2nd February 2009, 10:16 AM
No, it isn't. There are so many holes in your story that I'm wondering whether you're Swiss rather than Swedish. :)


M. :D

As per page 3 of this thread, she's actually Finnish. Yes I am Finnish!

Has she ditched the scale-that-can't-fail yet? I am finding it hard to be certain what is going to happen during the proposed study/test/waste of time.

Belz...
2nd February 2009, 10:18 AM
desertgal:
It has not been revealed as any of those things. I have not made a single verified incorrect perception.

You also have not made any single verified correct one, so there.

I am not mentally ill

How would you know ?

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 10:20 AM
No, I am working under the assumption that it is more likely the case of unintentional cold reading or no accuracy at all.


She's offering to sell "body art" on her website-her source being, of course, her alleged ability of being able to see inside the human body "better than an MRI". That is not "working under the assumption that it is more likely the case of unintentional cold reading or no accuracy at all."

That quoted statement is a complete crock. Anita wouldn't cross the street to tell the truth, but she'd apparently walk two miles to tell a lie.

Belz...
2nd February 2009, 10:23 AM
Anita,
In all seriousness, you need more sleep and less time wasted here if you want to learn the hard science you are trying to master.
Bon chance.

Bonne chance. Chance is feminine, in French.

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 10:33 AM
:D

As per page 3 of this thread, she's actually Finnish.

I thought she was Swedish? Finland has been independent of Sweden since 1809. Perhaps she means she speaks Finnish?

Has she ditched the scale-that-can't-fail yet? I am finding it hard to be certain what is going to happen during the proposed study/test/waste of time.

Nope. As Cuddles pointed out above, said scale makes it extremely difficult for Anita to fail-hence it is guaranteed that Anita will use it. Gotta have that wiggle room. :D

Skeptical Greg
2nd February 2009, 12:00 PM
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling :
desertgal:
It has not been revealed as any of those things. I have not made a single verified incorrect perception.

How about: You have not made a perception that anyone could verify you perceived it with anything other than the usual human senses.

Ashles
2nd February 2009, 01:07 PM
The majority of correct results (which anyone could get by putting N to everything) would be No ailment detected, No ailment present. So we remove them (at this stage) as not useful.
Ashles:
The point scale system I suggested is not what I intend to use. It was just a suggestion and is seriously flawed.
Well why not use a non-flawed system?
I am only suggesting all this analysis as you insist on using this scale.
At this preliminary stage it would be far more sensible to conduct a more clear study to see if there is anything to detect in the first place, rather than formulating a badly designed study to test the strength of many variables which are not confirmed in the first place.

However as this is the only study you appear happy to conduct despite all the advice you have been given then we have to work with that. This is what I am tying to do.

When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person.
But Anita this is the problem. This directly contradicts what happened with Wayne's shoulder and throat. Had it been truly insignificant then you would not have mentioned it.
You cannot report something and then say your answer should be ignored as it 'wasn't really an answer'. Presumably you perceived something otherwise you would not have reported anything.

So what we must do is agree beforehand that such a level of reporting (i.e. a '2' or '1') is considered not an answer. So even if you are correct in the area and ailment it will not count. You cannot have it both ways.
But the good news is that it appears we have made progress with that below.

Once I make a claimed perception it is open to be checked for accuracy as correct or incorrect. When I do not detect an ailment there is nothing to be checked for or against.
Again, to reiterate, since you claim answers of strength '2' are not really answers then we will consider '2', '1' and 'N' to be the equivalent of you recording 'N'. Any ailment recorded by the volunteer in this area at any strength will not be counted as successful.
Convesely a lack of ailment by the Volunteer will not be counted as a failure.
Let's call this Analysis Method 1)

In the interests of completin I will also add that if you disagree with this that is fine:

The alternative is that your '1' and '2' aswers can be counted as significant answers in which case if the Volunteer has an ailment you can count this as succesful, but if the Volunteer puts 'N' then this will be an indisputable incorrect perception and be counted as a Miss.
Let's call this Analysis Method 2)
I am assuming this is a less desirable method to you as it doesn't seem like how you interpreted the results previously.

Please decide on one of those two analysis methods. You cannot mix them.

The when and extent columns are intended for educational purposes for me to get clearer about the details of the claim. The when and extent columns are used for determination of correlation only if those who determine the correlation choose to include it. I will of course look heavily on the extent columns to learn more about my claim, since part of my claim is to be able to perceive to what extent a person perceives their ailments.
And my suggestion for this is as follows:

(N.B. This part of the analysis is purely for your own usage and interpretation and will indicate nothing particularly to skeptics.
If there is ever an actual test hopefully these results would help you decide what ailments to concentrate on)

Similar to your percentage analysis I would suggest that an exact match =100%, and then you deduct 20% for each 'point' on the scale away from what the volunteer put).
Then simply add all the percentages for each ailment. In theory the ones with the highest percentage will be the ones you feel you perceived most closely to what the volunteers put.

There is a bit of a problem in that some rarer ailments are more likely for both you and the volunteer to put 'N' for. In theory those will end up yielding the highest scores, so you would have to compensate for that.
I could suggest ways to do this with weighting calculations, but we can do that at a later stage if necessary - this stage is only for your own analysis so it won't impact our overall perception of accuracy and we can discuss different ways of looking at this bit seperately.

Oh well. It is a study, not a test. But trust me (although none of you will) I will be looking heavily to try to find reasons toward falsifying the claimed ability. *no one believes me that I would do that :nope:*
Well if you accept my proposal of 1:5 Misses to Hits and my analysis method then you will at least have agreed to a potential method of falsification.
I consider this good progress.

Also it helps you because if you write down N and the subject actually puts a 5 (or anything indicating an ailment) it will still not be counted.
That is correct. If I do not detect an ailment that is not counted against me as a miss. Even though I missed an ailment. Only when I claim to perceive an ailment is it open to be checked for accuracy.
I like that. I like that a lot.
I feel that as the claimant I am not able to determine what ratio would conclude no ability so I will leave it up to the skeptics.
Yes.
Yes.
I will do that.
It sounds like you agree with my proposal. This is excellent.
All you need is to confirm that you agree with using Analysis Method 1) (you can of course change to Analysis Method 2) if you want but it seems like you are happy with the first one)

I think I wrote the Hit: Miss ratio incorrectly.
Just t be clear, I am suggesting the ratio of 1 Hit to 5 Misses (or worse) to be considered a falsification.
E.g. if you only got 5 Hits and 25 Misses this would be considered a falsification of the ability (bearing in mind the Analysis Method 1) definition of Hits).
Personaly I feel this is fairly generous in your favour which seems appropriate at this stage of study.


:confused: What? After all I said above?
:cry1 I did no such things!
:cry1
:)
:(

I must admit I didn't expect you to agree straightaway to my proposals.
You have so I think that's great.

It is not a test! It is a study! It's like if you find a new insect you've never seen before and you want to study its behavior patterns at first you want to observe it in its own environment and take notes and only then do you think about taking it into a lab to subject it to controlled environments in order to find out what specificly caused what! *why can't I do a study on my paranormal claim*
As explained above that is not an appropriate analogy.
In your analogy the existence of the insect is already assumed and accepted. That is not the case with your claim. The analogy of the Leprechaun is very good - you are trying to narrow down the specifics of something that has not been demonstrated to exist in the first place.

That's why stage one should be a more generalised test to see if the ability exists in the first place. You have chosen to do this the other way around, even though you initially presented us with a specifically described set of ailments and the ways in which you perceived these ailments, as though you were already past that stage.
In effect you are saying that all the specific claims on your website should now be discarded as we are starting from scratch and you don't actually know when the ability works or doesn't, or what it can/can't detect.

ignored undesirable results
I have done no such thing. I have acknowledged that the perception of strain below the sternum as associated with the small intestine might not at all be associated with the small intestine while realizing that in fact it might. I had stated that I found no health problems with Wayne but that I sensed the left shoulder and adam's apple and that neither of those were perceptions of health problems. Besides if results are of inaccuracy I would not consider them to be undesirable. :)
Let me put it as clearly as I can.
It is indisputable that there is a huge difference in interpretation of the reported results regarding Wayne's shoulder and throat. You view it one way, everyone else views it in a different way. You cannot deny that.

Therefore it is imperative we take these steps to agree how results should be interpreted before any testing/study/results are recorded. That should prevent any such future differences in interpretation.

have no method of data analysis, and cannot so far come up with a method of falsification...those take away from your "skills as a scientist
Look at the insect analogy again. Why can't a scientist first study the subject before it is to be investigated further.
Because whether the subect actually exists has to be the first part of the study.
Could anyone study the behaviour of the Bogotian Swamp Ant before actually demonstrating such a thing existed?

Interesting that your first instinct to get backup for your scientific position is to go to another non-scientist who makes paranormal claims who also leaves his experiments open to interpretation.
As a scientist you should moving away from such clealry inconclusive research and towards stricter scientific protocols.
No, I was intending to conduct that research properly.
You are, at the moment, a very long way away from that.
And anyway I thought you wanted to concentrate on optics and healing with vibration?
Scientists, especialy in groundbreaking fields, can't be generalists, jumping from field to field.
And you really should research the history of scientists who have dedicated careers to trying to find evidence for the paranormal. It would hopefully explain why real scientists tend to view the field as fruitless and not worth wasting a career on.

The few who do so tend to be either the subject of elaborate (or not-so-elaborate) hoaxes, or so keen to find positive results their work is subject to great criticism of cherry-picking, file-drawer effect, confirmation bias and lack of replicability.
Some have dedicated entire careers towards attempting to demonstrate the paranormal. Not one so far has.

It seems that your leaning towards Mr Emoto before all the other areas a potential future scientist could study imply you have a pre-disposition towards believing in the paranormal.


And yet you have the opportunity to start that brave stance even as a student, yet constantly shy away from it by refusing to run tests at your own Uni?
In fact this directly contradicts your earlier claims that you don't want asociation with the paranormal to endanger your career..
No contradiction. I started being very hesitant to involve my career with my spare time paranormal investigation. Now that I've communicated with various people about the investigation I feel more encouraged since it wasn't as bad as it could have been. So I am gradually changing my position with regard to this as I learn more about what people in fact do think about this kind of thing.
So your position has changed? That would be why it looked like a contradiction to me. Fair enough. Changes of stance are to be encouraged.


Some of the worst work in these fields have been caried out when individuals claiming paranormal ability have been 'tested' by those who also want to believe.
If I test the claims of a woo I will have no interest in seeing them pass or fail. Don't make the assumption that my research would be biased.
And of course that is exactly what everyone who has ever performed research later shown to be biased has said.
Who ever says they are biased before research?
Any assumption I make about your bias, or any claim you make about your objectivity is absolutely irrelevant.

The point is you can say or claim what you like - the truth will come out in testing, or, in the cases I am referring to, replicability or analysis of the raw data.
You are still making the mistake that you will somehow change our opinions of your motivations or claim by simply stating what you would like us to accept.
Only independently verified test results can do that. (I think I may have mentioned this repeatedly starting a couple of months ago - you'll note nothing has changed since then)

And I am doing all that. I am taking responsibility and I am open to the possibility of falsifying my claim. :rolleyes:
Actions speak louder than words, and now you have agreed to a methodology whereby falsification is possible then I accept that.

The study is not a test. And it is a decent study.
It is not really a decent study. We are having to work round the flaws in it.
It is not unworkable, but it is certainly not the best study that could be run at this stage.
But as you want to run primarily a study that will help you decide which ailments can be best detected (although you have not designed any method of interpreting or extracting that information) and only peripherally have a falsification scenario (which I had to add in for you) then it really could not be said to be a well designed study.

You want us to concentrate on talking about the study - you should too.
And I do.
Okay let's firm up the protocol. Are you agreed to Analysis Method 1) and a 1:5 (or worse) Hit:Miss falsification ratio?

It seems like you are taking this study and 'ability' to be already assumed and simply the first stepping stone onto an inevitable and exciting career.
Paranormal investigations will not be my career. It might become an interesting hobby on the side. I am definitely learning a lot by doing a paranormal investigation, so what ever. :hug7
So Mr Emoto would just be a quick study/test then?
You wrote:
I intend to be one of the brave scientists who is willing to put her reputation in line to look into unconventional claims or hypotheses that relate to my field of study...
If a woo comes up with some strange claims about some electronic instrument or healing powers then I can be one to objectively consider their claim ...
and perhaps even devote some of my own spare time and resources to find a way to prove and explain why their claims are flawed.
If you open yourself up to such claims you will have no time for anything else.
If you reject some, how are you going to decide which?

Asm
2nd February 2009, 01:15 PM
Asm:
a) I am still just as convinced as I was then that I have accurately perceived health information in cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available and there still hasn't been a single case of confirmed inaccuracy.

But... In this thread people have taught you about confirmation bias, chance, that memory cannot be trusted, the power of imagination/delusions, etc. This SHOULD have made you less convinced.


a) I know I am not deluded.

How can you possibly know? Deluded people are often unable to notice that they are deluded by themselves. It takes a third person (or as in this thread, MANY a third person). I still think you should see a psychiatrist. Just in case.

The perceptions in themselves are no reason for concern

True.

and the way I handle the perceptions are also no reason for concern.

Untrue.

In fact it seems to have taken control over your life. I am not only referring to your medical perceptions, but other claims and statements you have made in other threads and on your web page.

(BTW, I too am still undecided whether this is a scam or a delusion. It IS either/or. (Edit: OR some kind of field study as LONGTABBER PE pointed out. If that is the case, don't expect me to applaud and respect you when the truth is revealed. Talk about wasting people's time!))

Uncayimmy
2nd February 2009, 01:24 PM
I have to repeat, that this is the easiest thing in the world to test. As someone said, merely get 5 skeptics in a room, some of whom have ailments detectable as according to Anita.

We can even tell Anita what ailments are in the room. All she has to do is pick the person for said ailment. And viola! Sorted. Done. Finished.

Your test is fine except that it's not a test of her claims. I'll explain this again because it keeps getting lost.

Anita claims 100% accuracy in about 100 people. This accuracy is defined as, "Whenever I sense something, the ensuing conversation tells me I am right. When I do not sense something, I never attempt to find out what, if anything, missed. Thus while I have detected one vasectomy accurately, I have no idea whether anyone else I read had a vasectomy. I continue to find new things that I can sense, but I make no claim that I can sense those things in every person."

This is why the IIG could never develop a test protocol that Anita would accept.

The cornerstone of everything that is going on here is Anita's belief in her Apparent Accuracy™. Her study is based on the assumption that her anecdotal evidence is reliable enough to justify an attempt at detecting the limits and learning more about it so that she can come up with some sort of testable claim.

What I argue is that in a way we have been distracted to the point where we are no longer attacking her Apparent Accuracy™. Anita must start from scratch and create reliable data to be able to assert Apparent Accuracy™.

Her study can do this. If she meets with 20 people and produces not a single false positive, it will be a great start to replacing her anecdotal data with real data. Since she did not use a scale in judging her Apparent Accuracy™, then she must not be allowed to use that scale now. She is welcome to collect the data, but under no circumstances must it be used to determine her accuracy.

At this point the only way to prove to Anita what we already know is for her to be judged on the accuracy of what she believes she can see. She says she doesn't see things that are not there, so that is the basis for the test: false positives.

She has repeatedly told us that she knows she doesn't always see what is actually there. This doesn't bother her. To her it means either that ailment is not detectable or that it is only detectable some percentage of the time. No amount of persuasion will change that. Purge it from your mind.

Of course, a critically thinking person will be saying, "Gee. If she reads 20 people and declares them all healthy, then we haven't gotten anywhere." Yep. We'll be exactly where we are now. Nobody here believes she has an ability and she gets to keep her delusion.

Uncayimmy
2nd February 2009, 01:57 PM
Ashles,

I really like where you're heading, but I think your 1:5 ratio is premature at this point. We don't know how many people she will read, now many ailments are on the form, or the frequency at which people select ailments. For example, I've seen estimates for some types of pain that reach 80% in the general population.

Also, I haven't seen how the time frames come into play. In my own case I can circle "Longer Than a Year" for just about every pain listed. Anita told the IIG that she needed people to be currently in pain for her test. That might be a good start.

Ashles
2nd February 2009, 02:06 PM
Her study can do this. If she meets with 20 people and produces not a single false positive, it will be a great start to replacing her anecdotal data with real data. Since she did not use a scale in judging her Apparent Accuracy™, then she must not be allowed to use that scale now. She is welcome to collect the data, but under no circumstances must it be used to determine her accuracy.

At the moment I am assuming the scale to be simply something to assist Anita in detailing her own ability.

Which I agree is very strange as when she first started this thread she semed to know far more about the 'ability' and its limitations than she does now - in fact when you look at her claims page (http://visionfromfeeling.com/page3.html) it seems like an actual test should have been relatively straightforward to set up based on those specific body parts and ailments. Reading that page for the frst time I think the average reader would be surprised to know that Anita does not appear to be certain of what body parts or ailments she actually can detect, or with what frequency or in what situations.

But anyway the scale can be converted into hits and misses for the purposes of potential falsification, as Anita appears to be agreeing to. And this study by Anita's own agreement, can provide no evidence towards the ability, but does stand a chance of falsifying it (according to results we seem to have agreed on).

Agreed, a real test must have no scale.

Old man
2nd February 2009, 02:10 PM
Originally Posted by Ashles:
Please describe in as much detail as necessary what results would lead you to conclude your claim had been falsified at this stage.
… I have not been verified incorrect a single time yet … Except for “bones in the Adam’s apple”.


Originally Posted by Ashles:
Quote:
To be honest you should simply remove the falsification goal from the objectives from this study because there is no way it can, as described, be falsified.
I simply will not remove the falsification objective. If there is no ability then it might be very clearly so on the study. I think the better thing to do is to work on establishing what falsifies the claim rather than to remove one of the more important objectives of the study. You do realize that, using your methodology, You can’t possibly get ‘zero %’ hits, don’t you? What level of performance will indicate falsification? Below 90%? 75%? 50%? 10%? Let me guess – None of the above

UncaYimmy is in a grumpy mood today...
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy:
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy:
Yes. I did it while working a full time job. When I struggled to meet my obligations, I didn't make excuses. And I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time rewriting protocols and questionnaires I considered to be brilliant. If I did, I would have stopped when people with experience told me I was doing it wrong. Learn to manage your time.
No, you cut out a part of my entire statement which was "Do you have any idea how much time it takes to be studying 16 credits with all A's with some of the hardest undergraduate level courses offered?" There is a difference. You put a lot more work into it if you get A's than B's or just C's. And it also depends on what classes they are. So we are probably not in the same situation. I do manage my time: by prioritizing my studies. There.. Yeah, UncaYimmy, failin’ basket weavin’ don’t count! Looks like you need ta change yer user name. How about "SoftballYimmy", instead? (BTW, when did she get a holda yer transcripts, ya big meanie?)


If you read the first response from Park and Recreation,

"Anita: I have reviewed the information and we are not going to permit this in a park setting. I wish you the best in this endeavor. It sounds very interesting."

how can you argue when I interpret this e-mail that we are not allowed to have the study in the park? The next e-mail response arrived later that evening,

"you can reserve a room or a shelter and do what you have described, but we won't reserve open space in a park or allow you to set up a booth in a park. You would need to contact the city of charlotte about streets and sidewalks, but my guess is they will not permit it either." Mecklenburg Park and Recreation Department:

“Hey, Ted, look at this wacky email I got. She wants to set up some kinda phsyco’ test in the park. I told her no.”

“Uh, Bob, you can’t do that. There’s nothin’ in the regs about people asking other people questions.”

“Oh… Well, if she writes again I’ll straighten it out.”

Originally Posted by Coveredinbeeees:
The question remains, to what extent would your results need to deviate from those of the sceptic group in order for you to consider further study worthwhile?
I don't know, I'm sorry. I'm just hoping that if there is no ability in accurately perceiving health information then that would be *obvious enough*. The main objectives of the study remain, to learn more about the paranormal claim. A non-ability might slip through the first study but it would be caught in a second study which I will design to be much more rigorous or the test, which ever would follow next. Anita, the fact that you have “no ability” is ALREADY “*obvious enough*”, to everyone but YOU.

Originally Posted by Asm:
Hi Anita,

Just out of curiosity,

When you started this thread you seemed convinced that you had paranormal abilities. Now, a couple of thousand posts later, are you:

a) Still just as convinced?
b) Less convinced?
a) I am still just as convinced as I was then that I have accurately perceived health information in cases where I don't know what cold reading would have been available and there still hasn't been a single case of confirmed inaccuracy. However I am not convinced that I have paranormal abilities since unintentional cold reading or guessing might be responsible. The study and tests will find out. Except for “bones in the Adam’s apple”.

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
... and not a single case of inaccuracy.
Originally Posted by GeeMack
But that is simply not true. If you know it's not true, you're a liar. If you believe it is true, you're sick. Which do you think it is, Anita?

Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again. I thought you’d never ask!

“bones in the Adam’s apple”

I definitely did not fail with Wayne. He wrote *a list* of his health problems which, turns out only contained a past accident which he has fully recovered from which only has the scar after it and no sensations of discomfort or other permanent damage or discomfort. That was all. Then I was fully expecting logically there to be a lot of health problems with the person but I couldn't find any no matter how hard I tried. I tuned up the "ability" to desperately try to find at least "one of those things on his list" and all I could sense was a very insignificantly tired left shoulder, and the adam's apple. So I concluded that I found nothing wrong. And, turns out, there was nothing wrong to be found. Just a scar. Which I missed. And that is not a failure. I did very well.
“bones in the Adam’s apple”

Originally Posted by GeeMack:
He had one medical issue. You completely missed it. You failed. 100%. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt by considering that you might have a mental illness, Anita. You can fix mentally ill. But it's looking more and more like several of these other people are right in their assessment. Maybe you really are nothing but a side show freak wannabe, a simple lying carnie.
My paranormal claim then is not to detect the scar after an injured diaphragm. I do not consider having a mental illness because I didn't detect a particular scar! It was not even consistent with my claim! How rude! Wait until I've read more people and actually claimed to detect health information and then we can have a field day discussing the implications of the results! But you DO claim to see abnormalities, like “bones in the Adam’s apple”. And yet, in Wayne’s case, there was “nothing wrong with him”. You ‘saw’ something, and it WASN’T THERE. That’s a MISS, Anita.

Ashles
2nd February 2009, 02:17 PM
Ashles,

I really like where you're heading, but I think your 1:5 ratio is premature at this point. We don't know how many people she will read, now many ailments are on the form, or the frequency at which people select ailments.
That shouldn't matter - the ratio is only calculated on results that are at judged least '2' by the volunteer and at least '3' by Anita.
This should be an area in which there are real ailments and Anita feels 'real' significant perceptions.
And that hopefully is the region in which there are interesting results to be examined.

Also, I haven't seen how the time frames come into play. In my own case I can circle "Longer Than a Year" for just about every pain listed. Anita told the IIG that she needed people to be currently in pain for her test. That might be a good start.
I don't see the time period as relevant to our judgement of hits or misses, only to Anita's personal interpretation of the results.

If someone puts 2-5 on an ailment, and Anita marks 3-5, I would consider that worthy of judging as a Hit, no matter what the time period was marked as.

Like I say, for the purposes of falsification I am allowing the marking to be very generous towards Anita.

In my opinion, falsification at this level, with these criteria, would be very significant and would thoroughly justify a conclusion of no-ability.

Any other result would be entirely inconclusive from a point of view of indicating ability.

Uncayimmy
2nd February 2009, 03:09 PM
That shouldn't matter - the ratio is only calculated on results that are at judged least '2' by the volunteer and at least '3' by Anita.

With "longer than a year" as a qualifier, yer UncaYimmy would check 25 of the 26 conditions listed under pain (never had heart pain). Hang around on this planet for 42 years and you're bound to have pain just about everywhere at some point.

With the discomforts that have a time frame, I would check 12 out of 15. C'mon, who has never been nauseous or dizzy? If you've had the flu at some point in your life, that gives you several things to check.

Therefore, a purely random guess has a 90% chance of being right. Your hurdle to continue this charade is that she is only right 15% of the time.

I'll put it back on you. What is your mathematical basis for 1:5 hits to misses? On what are you basing that? What percentage of boxes have to be checked by participants for 15% to have any meaning?

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 03:37 PM
Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.
I thought you’d never ask!
“bones in the Adam’s apple”


For that matter, she could have had many inaccurate medical perceptions. All she has to offer are her anecdotes, which glorify her, and none of those are verified. We don't even know that she didn't just conjure them up out of thin air.

Her mock outrage is somewhat ineffective here.

al_capone_junior
2nd February 2009, 03:48 PM
With "longer than a year" as a qualifier, yer UncaYimmy would check 25 of the 26 conditions listed under pain (never had heart pain). Hang around on this planet for 42 years and you're bound to have pain just about everywhere at some point.


My pain, over a lifetime of consideration, has primarily been in the neck and the ass. :D

I agree, so far I've seen nothing in this thread from Anita other than anecdotes and perhaps delusional fantasies of her own self-importance. Granted, it totals about 40-60 pages worth, but after reading all 50-something pages of this exchange, I'm not a shred more convinced of her abilities than I wasn't already when I first clicked on the thread. Tho I'm more convinced of her charlatan nature now.

Old man
2nd February 2009, 03:53 PM
Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Tell me one inaccurate medical perception that I've had? Do not avoid this question or I will ask again and again.
For that matter, she could have had many inaccurate medical perceptions. All she has to offer are her anecdotes, which glorify her, and none of those are verified. We don't even know that she didn't just conjure them up out of thin air.

Her mock outrage is somewhat ineffective here. Yeah. I first called her out on this in post #1784, five days ago. She even quoted an irrelevant statement I made. I really like this part - "Do not avoid this question". Riiiight. :D

Farencue
2nd February 2009, 04:21 PM
7th November 2008, 11:30 AM #42

VisionFromFeeling


Just a few minutes ago I wrote to a medical doctor at a university who had conducted a similar study of psychic medical diagnose asking him whether he would be interested in testing my ability with me.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So Anita, did the good doctor ever get back to you?

Kariboo
2nd February 2009, 04:31 PM
Asm:
When I claim to detect an ailment then I am simultaneously claiming that the ailment occurs to an extent significant to be perceived by the person. Once I make a claimed perception it is open to be checked for accuracy as correct or incorrect.

I am reading this to mean that you only "feel" someones ailments when the person you are observing is perceiving that ailment however from your website:

Dec 6 08: I detected two highly unusual anatomical traits; the threshold from the stomach to the pyloric valve was set much higher than in most people, and I also saw that the kidneys were significantly larger than most people.

Dec 3 08: I detected a significantly low stroke volume (the amount of blood the heart pushes out at a contraction) of up to 80% of the blood remaining in the ventricles.

These are all ailments that the person is not aware of, so is your claim that you can perceive only if the person is aware of it or do you claim something else???

desertgal
2nd February 2009, 04:35 PM
7th November 2008, 11:30 AM #42

VisionFromFeeling


Just a few minutes ago I wrote to a medical doctor at a university who had conducted a similar study of psychic medical diagnose asking him whether he would be interested in testing my ability with me.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So Anita, did the good doctor ever get back to you?

And whatever happened to that local "psychic" who was going to let you evaluate some of her clients?

Farencue
2nd February 2009, 04:57 PM
Good question Desertgal.

From the Rhine Research Center (which is located in Durham NC) webpage:
“An Integrative Center for the Study of Consciousness. Now independent of Duke University, the Rhine Research Center is still located near Duke’s West Campus and Medical Center. We aim to meet the great need for information about the depth and breadth and potential of human consciousness. We will continue to present in various formats the best and most instructive current thought on these things. And we will continue to add to the body of scientific knowledge about the nature and power of the mind.
Generating scientific knowledge about consciousness and presenting a wide array of speculative ideas about consciousness and its enhancement might seem to be different and even contradictory things. They are potentially complementary, and we attempt to integrate them.
If anyone wishes to make a truly independent study of any subject, and not simply learn of the prior opinions and findings of others, there are two basic paths for exploration. We may study something empirically, and rely upon the methods of science: theory and hypothesis, objective measurements, control of variables, mathematical analysis of results, and peer-review of conclusions. Still, not all important questions are readily amenable to these methods. The other path for study is more personal and informal. We may find an interesting idea and tentatively adopt it, and try it out in the “laboratory” of our own experience. If we find that it is useful, and adds to our sense of understanding important things and enhances our personal sense of efficacy, then we may keep it and build upon it as a basis for testing other new ideas. If it does not prove to be very useful, hopefully we will be clear-headed and independent enough to toss it out, and look for something better. Most people carry out this sort of informal “research” all their lives. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but each has its unique advantages and disadvantges. Personal, informal research permits us to test out ideas that we find difficult or impossible to squeeze into the structure of empirical study. The downside is that our personal perspective is always limited and potentially biased in unwitting ways, and our range of experience is relatively narrow. We may reach conclusions that are wrong, or only very narrowly true, and never know it. Empirical research is painstaking and often slow-going, and may be somewhat narrow in terms of the questions it can manage. It may seem to miss some of the richness and immediacy of ongoing experience. Its advantage is that with it we can know something for sure, and integrate it with the rest of scientific knowledge. It is with scientific knowledge, after all, that our culture has constructed our modern world, with all its advantages. Certain knowledge is powerful knowledge.”

From Leon E Curry MD webpage under heading "Upcoming Appearances" and I believe it is 2008:
October 24 - Duke University, Stedman Auditorium, presented by Rhine Research Center
and also on the good doctors page:
"What if you discovered a powerful diagnostic machine that could read the human body like an MRI, and identify disease? What if that machine was another human being?"
which I believe is a reference to his book titled: "The Doctor and the Psychic" which is about Greta Alexander who died around 10 years ago.

Anita has posted on the good doctors webpage 27th November 2008 and he on hers 28th November 2008. Apparently the doctor was also going to be making an appearance with Sylvia Browne in Georgia in 2008.:eek:

I dont believe that this a NEW delusion at all, I believe it to be a resurrection of an OLD scam.:rolleyes:

But, I could be wrong.

Farencue
2nd February 2009, 05:18 PM
GeeMack:

I haven't even had much chances to demonstrate any extra-sensory abilities! I've only had one chance and that was with Wayne! And he didn't have anything wrong with him! According to my perceptions the man was in beautiful health, better than average! (His heart, lungs, liver and digestive system all looked absolutely wonderful and healthy. It was a delight to see.)
But Hoooneeeyyy!!! I am most willing to demonstrate and to be put to the test! I am able to demonstrate it!!! Bring me some people with hidden health problems! I haven't failed anything! There is no joke! I perceive medical information when I look at people! Bring me some people and I will show you what I mean! :p
I am neither mentally ill nor a liar!


Very, very scary stuff indeed. According to my bullsh!t detector there will be no protocol, study, test or credibility put forth by Anita. Thanks for the entertainment Anita and again to the JREFers thankyou for sharing your expertise and knowledge with all who have come across this thread.

Kuko 4000
3rd February 2009, 02:07 AM
I thought she was Swedish? Finland has been independent of Sweden since 1809. Perhaps she means she speaks Finnish?



Let me clear this on behalf of Anita. In the beginning of the thread she wrote a PM to me stating that her parents are originally from Finland, but she herself was born in Sweden.

This is quite normal. Her last name is Finnish and her first name is more Swedish. Makes sense to me.

Kuko 4000
3rd February 2009, 02:11 AM
If Anita had the powers she claims in her website it would take about 5 minutes to convince a room full of skeptics of her abilites.


I agree with Jonquill. Anita, you're fooling only yourself if you're being serious about all this.

LONGTABBER PE
3rd February 2009, 03:43 AM
Good question Desertgal.


From Leon E Curry MD webpage under heading "Upcoming Appearances" and I believe it is 2008:
October 24 - Duke University, Stedman Auditorium, presented by Rhine Research Center
and also on the good doctors page:
"What if you discovered a powerful diagnostic machine that could read the human body like an MRI, and identify disease? What if that machine was another human being?"
which I believe is a reference to his book titled: "The Doctor and the Psychic" which is about Greta Alexander who died around 10 years ago.

Anita has posted on the good doctors webpage 27th November 2008 and he on hers 28th November 2008. Apparently the doctor was also going to be making an appearance with Sylvia Browne in Georgia in 2008.:eek:

I dont believe that this a NEW delusion at all, I believe it to be a resurrection of an OLD scam.:rolleyes:

But, I could be wrong.

Do you have a link for this part? I couldnt find his site

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 03:55 AM
His site address is in VfF's guestbook otherwise google "doctor and psychic".
I cant post links yet.

LONGTABBER PE
3rd February 2009, 04:00 AM
You offer a compelling argument in favor of a deliberate scam over delusion. Of course, as you said, the jury is still out. As well, it's also possible that we are looking at a combination: a delusional person attempting a deliberate scam. If Anita truly believes that she is as extraordinary as she claims, then it isn't impossible that she would attempt to market herself.

I think, though, to get a complete picture, one has to read all her claims. It's all these, along with this thread, that led Unca, myself, and others to lean towards delusional.

Ghost Experiences (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4247220#post4247220)

As well, there is the whole "white dwarf star" nonsense. I keep going back to that. It all may be part of a scam - but to write to the managers of a forum, and complain that she can't join because she isn't "human"-that's just delusional.

I think the tentative beginnings of your "end result" might be here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4262369#post4262369), and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130245&highlight=Mary+Occhino).

Whichever it is that Anita is doing, as you said, only time will tell.

Thanks DG and it may very well be a combination of the 2 but after reading the links you posted ( some of those ghost stories were cute- thanks) ans Farencues post- I'm now even more solidly convinced this is a "for profit" scam.

One thing I noticed ( froom my syatement analysis training ) was that in her introductory post, she made no mention of ghosts yet when she got on the thread you posted, its like she talks to them every day. Also those stories all sound scripted to either solicit an emotional response and always seem to point to VFF as being one of great "resource" or authority to "help" or "resolve" or to "feel". ( like her story of the little girl ghost or the Revolutionary War one) All the stories seem to highlight and reinforce her core claims.

Hell, I could have watched the Patriot and had a beer too many and had that one myself.

She is "charging" for art on her page and with her post regarding practicing and the other post regarding her contacting that MD.

Also, theres only her word that separates these from actual events or scripted events and her "word" isnt worth much.

LONGTABBER PE
3rd February 2009, 04:01 AM
His site address is in VfF's guestbook otherwise google "doctor and psychic".
I cant post links yet.

cool, thats the only page of her site I didnt look at LOL

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 06:01 AM
Let me clear this on behalf of Anita. In the beginning of the thread she wrote a PM to me stating that her parents are originally from Finland, but she herself was born in Sweden.

This is quite normal. Her last name is Finnish and her first name is more Swedish. Makes sense to me.

Ah, I see. I never really doubted that she is Swedish, but thanks for clearing up that contradiction. :)

Femke
3rd February 2009, 08:04 AM
Dear Anita,

I can't resist elaborating on your insect analogy.
If you find an insect that you think is new, unique and exciting, the first thing you do is rush to the Entomology lab, to check whether or not it shares characters with well-known, mundane insects that are already in our collection. If you do not rule this out beforehand, you risk losing face when you announce: 'Look, this is Visio tactilii, a new and wonderful insect', and some veteran entomologists say: 'It looks remarkably like Lector frigidus (vernacular name Coldreader), how did you make sure it is not one of the many varieties of that species?' And others might say: 'It also looks like Whatsit delusiae, how did you rule that out?', and still others would like to know if you might just have tried to claim the well-known Buggus fraudulens to be a new species.
This is what happens here. You found some insect that you assumed to be new, and you want to study its behavioral patterns, without checking if it might be one of the other, far more likely, species. We are the entomologists who would like you to check the collection first.

Femke

Skeptical Greg
3rd February 2009, 10:39 AM
I believe Farencue is on to something ..
LONGTABBER PE's investigative skills should really add to the mix also ..

Further revelations should be interesting.. I think Anita is about to be pwned..

Gmonster2
3rd February 2009, 10:59 AM
*** Warning put all drinks down before reading this article coffee is hazardous to your lcd screen..thank you ***

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies, 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)

Professor Yaffle
3rd February 2009, 11:11 AM
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)

Good work everyone!

Sideroxylon
3rd February 2009, 11:25 AM
*** Warning put all drinks down before reading this article coffee is hazardous to your lcd screen..thank you ***

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies, 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)


Anita should consider adding this to a description of her claims (if she hasn't already):

A Physical Scan known in the traditional medical field as an intuitive anatomical medical diagnosis addresses your current physical energy, (every thing that has happened to your body I held in your cellular memory including even the “boo boos” you experienced as a child).(


It must really seriously boost the chance of hits if you can include a person's entire medical history. It must be all stored in some kind of quantum vibrations I suppose.

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 11:27 AM
Thanks DG and it may very well be a combination of the 2 but after reading the links you posted ( some of those ghost stories were cute- thanks) ans Farencues post- I'm now even more solidly convinced this is a "for profit" scam.
<snippety>


Fair enough. For my own reasons, I still leans towards a combination of delusional/scam, but I accept that your conclusion might equally be true. Only time will tell.

Anita, of course, protests that she is just a science student looking to explain experiences that have happened to her, but her constant contradictions and irrationality indicate otherwise. IMO, if the 'study' doesn't yield results that point to a paranormal ability, she will disregard them and continue proclaiming herself a "psychic medical diagnostician", inventing "accurate", anecdotal results repeatedly in the future.

I am curious as to your opinion on, if Anita is running a scam, why here? Obviously, in the beginning, she may have had the hope that she could 'fool the skeptics', but is pretty apparent that no one believes a word she says at this point. Why persevere? She can't sell us anything, and if her presence here is so she can proclaim to have discussed this with skeptics (and/or twist our words for her website as she did Unca's and Miss Kitt's), then she has done that. She has no interest, really, in using any protocol or scale that anyone here presents. It's baffling. (If this has been asked and answered before, I apologize-haven't had the chance to go back through the thread.)

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 11:29 AM
*** Warning put all drinks down before reading this article coffee is hazardous to your lcd screen..thank you ***

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies, 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)

I wonder how old this article is - there's no date. Anita's 'inspiration', perhaps?

Locknar
3rd February 2009, 11:29 AM
*** Warning put all drinks down before reading this article coffee is hazardous to your lcd screen..thank you ***

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/What_is_an_Intuitive_Anatomical_Medical_Diagnosis_ or_a_Medical_Intuitive_Body_Scan.html

Check this out, vibrational frequencies, 360 degree viewing , MRI scanning by a human (psychic) , ring any bells guys?? :)From the site:

Other values of an Intuitive Diagnostic or Anatomical Medical "Body Scan"
• It SAVES TIME! in catastrophic or trauma injury, critical or intensive care or emergency medicine situations
Catastrophic injury? A new high in lows....downright criminal (or certainly should be).

Moochie
3rd February 2009, 11:44 AM
I wonder how old this article is - there's no date. Anita's 'inspiration', perhaps?

At the bottom of the page, there's a copyright 1996-2009. Seems it's a long-running woo site, and of course our "guest" will be aware of it and any like it. She would have done the research, I'm sure.


M.

Locknar
3rd February 2009, 12:02 PM
At the bottom of the page, there's a copyright 1996-2009. Seems it's a long-running woo site, and of course our "guest" will be aware of it and any like it. She would have done the research, I'm sure.


M.I noticed that too. I viewed the souce, and it appears to draw from a folder named "1999".

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 12:33 PM
I noticed that too. I viewed the souce, and it appears to draw from a folder named "1999".

Thanks, M & L.

Given that Dr. Curry signed her guestbook, and she his, I'm guessing we now know where Anita's "claim" comes from.

Gee, Anita, looks like someone might beat you to that Nobel medal. Darn.

"No soup for you. NEXT!"

Miss_Kitt
3rd February 2009, 01:09 PM
And the beat goes on...

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 01:38 PM
I believe Farencue is on to something ..
LONGTABBER PE's investigative skills should really add to the mix also ..

Further revelations should be interesting.. I think Anita is about to be pwned..

The problem I have with the scammer theory is this: Where is the parallel? By that I mean how many scammers have started on skeptic websites to begin their scam? The evidence is that 99.99% of the scammers avoid skeptic websites altogether. Those rare few that have approached typically want to take the challenge, which is a great way to get publicity.

In the case of The Professor he played it almost perfectly, even offering skeptics $25K for helping him win. He wanted his "test" to be publicized (in a cemetery at midnight on Halloween in the Devil's Chair). Even if it didn't "work," so what? All he had to hope for was some noise on a tape, which he could then claim said something. People will hear what they want to hear. If there was no noise, then he could accuse the JREF of doctoring the tapes or simply say, as Uri Geller has many times, his abilities are unreliable and difficult under laboratory conditions.

He also pointed out on other sites how unfair and close minded the skeptics were. If somebody called him delusional, do you think he would take the time to address that symptom by symptom? No. He'd use it as evidence that the skeptics are afraid of him and refuse to even consider the paranormal. He turned negative responses into positive responses by spinning them to his audience. Anita has done none of that.

Anita's guestbook was up for almost a year before the Doctor and Psychic guy signed it. That was a day after she signed his guestbook. Looks to me like she stumbled across his site, and he took the opportunity to get a link back to his site. It's the only one we've seen. Pretty much every other link to her site is from skeptic sites.

If she's a scammer, she's making incredibly bad decisions left and right. If she's a scammer, she's 18 months into it without making a single dime off of it.

If you were a scammer, what would you do? First thing is I would promote myself to my target audience: those who believe in woo. I would link to all sorts of other woo sites and ask for links back. I might approach the skeptics, but only to the point where I could make them attack me (which we've done). I would cherry pick the attacks and post them on my site.

I would make a big deal out of how the IIG can't explain my powers and therefore can't test me despite 18 months of trying to devise a protocol. I wouldn't keep the negotiation open. I would point out that after 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 posts the skeptics at the JREF could not figure out how to test me and instead called me delusional. I would point how how they were wrong about me being from Sweden - not one person took me up on my offer to call me and hear my accent. I would point out how they insisted that I couldn't be taking a double-major even though it's clear on the UNC website that it's possible - what kind of skeptics can't do basic research?

I would make up much better "observations" than what is currently on her site. I would have passed the chemical identification test with flying colors - if they said I was lying, then why did they ask me to take the test in the first place? I would tout my success at the FACT meeting without linking back to a site the rips that reading to shreds - "Look, I even accurately read a skeptic on their home turf, right under the nose of the president of the group! They were too afraid to let anyone else test me."

I see none of that. If she's a scammer, either she's incredibly bad at it or she is the most patient and diabolical I've ever seen.

dirtygreek
3rd February 2009, 02:30 PM
I agree with the Unca. I met Anita at the infamous Winston meeting (This is George, if I met any of you) but unfortunately had to leave before she could do her study on Wayne. I am of course very doubtful of her claims, and seeing some of the ways she's expressed herself on this thread makes me even more so. Of course, it also makes me question the personalities of several of the people on the board. However, she certainly doesn't approach the situation in the way any scammer would. She's actually very soft spoken and not at all pushy, and she is very genuinely nice and interesting in person.

Professor Yaffle
3rd February 2009, 02:48 PM
I reckon she picked up a lot of her language (vibrational frequency etc) from this sort of site, but she probably found the sites when looking for information on what she thinks she can do.

Ashles
3rd February 2009, 03:20 PM
With "longer than a year" as a qualifier, yer UncaYimmy would check 25 of the 26 conditions listed under pain (never had heart pain). Hang around on this planet for 42 years and you're bound to have pain just about everywhere at some point.
Anything Anita puts down as N, 1 or 2 will be omitted from the Hit, Miss analysis. Her marking 3 to a volunteer's 1 will be omitted.
If you mark down symptoms of something as 2 or higher and Anita marks it 3 or higher then, to be honest, I think it is fair enough to consider that a Hit within the parameters of this unofficial study.
If someone marks almost everything as 2 or higher then their form will skew the results. If someone has had pain of 2 or higher in all the places mentioned on the form then they really need to see a doctor.
Anyway, in a real test this level of freedom of interpretation would not be allowed. This isn't a test and, to be honest, the number of Hits here are only peripherally relevant.

With the discomforts that have a time frame, I would check 12 out of 15. C'mon, who has never been nauseous or dizzy? If you've had the flu at some point in your life, that gives you several things to check.
Unca it looks like you are telling me Anita's form is badly designed.
Uh, I know. :confused:

Therefore, a purely random guess has a 90% chance of being right. Your hurdle to continue this charade is that she is only right 15% of the time.
I'll put it back on you. What is your mathematical basis for 1:5 hits to misses? On what are you basing that? What percentage of boxes have to be checked by participants for 15% to have any meaning?
Any percentage of boxes ticked allow a Hit:Miss ratio to be calculated. Please see my definition of Hits and Misses within Anita's described scale. (I'll list all the permutations again when I have a moment - maybe tomorrow night)

The main point of my rather arbitrary figures is that it introduces a pre-agreed point of possible falsification which, as far as I can tell, has been completely absent in the 12 years Anita claims to have had this 'ability'.
It is simply a start point - an introduction to the concept of falsification, rather than anything I feel has any particular importance as a specific statistical cut-off point.
It could easily be argued to alter the weightings or the ratio to be stricter on Anita (and more in line with real statistical analysis) but I feel that would lead Anita to reject it and, within this study, doesn't, inmy opinion, serve a particular purpose other than to simply remove the possibilty of falsification at this stage.

My fugures are clearly well skewed in Anita's favour (i.e. outright falsification is pretty unlikely given the assumptions I have made), but the important point is to agree a real calculable falsification scenario, no matter that it could probably be beaten by the random rolls of a six-sided die.

Also if Anita rejected this definition of falsification then it is clear she would reject anything and therefore is not genuinely interested in having any sort of falsification scenario.

The study, if it goes ahead, is almost certain to use Anita's new forms. Nobody likes these forms except Anita, but it looks like they aren't going to change.
I have tried to generate a possible falsification scenario using those forms. If Anita agrees, for the first time, it would be possible for Anita to fail to a level that would have been pre-agreed constitutes no ability.

There is also agreement by both Anita and skeptics that this test cannot in any way provide evidence towards suggesting the existence of any 'ability'. So I don't see it is a huge problem to use the figures and assumptions I have made.

But of course I am open to suggestions or modifications.

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 03:38 PM
Anybody know of anybody on this board who could run some numbers for us? Is FLS a statistician?

Ashles, since Anita told IIG that she needed people to be in pain for the test, how about we only count a limited set of time frames? Just eliminating within the year or longer than a year would reduce the number of eligible check marks considerably but still give her the data she wants.

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 03:39 PM
Of course, it also makes me question the personalities of several of the people on the board.

Not to be critical but I expect that, except for Anita, Jim, and Dr. Olson, you haven't actually met the people posting in this thread, so your judgment of their personalities would be limited by that. After all, from one point of view, in this thread, some question that Anita is a scammer - and you say that isn't accurate.

Was that comment really necessary?

However, she certainly doesn't approach the situation in the way any scammer would. She's actually very soft spoken and not at all pushy, and she is very genuinely nice and interesting in person.

Fair enough. :)

I reckon she picked up a lot of her language (vibrational frequency etc) from this sort of site, but she probably found the sites when looking for information on what she thinks she can do.

Fair enough. :)

skeen
3rd February 2009, 03:49 PM
@dirtygreek: you need to read more of this thread I think.

Skeptical Greg
3rd February 2009, 04:01 PM
Quote:
However, she certainly doesn't approach the situation in the way any scammer ( I am aware of ) would. She's actually very soft spoken and not at all pushy, and she is very genuinely nice and interesting in person.There , fixed it for you ... Personal incredulity doesn't count for much here.

Since when can't a scammer be - soft spoken, not at all pushy, very genuinely nice and interesting ?

Endearing herself to the skeptical community could just be part of the set up; even though it may not be working for her in any way that we can comprehend.

While she is avoiding a legitimate test, she can make claims about how hard she is trying to work out a testing protocol with card carrying skeptics, and cry foul when things don't go her way .

skeen
3rd February 2009, 04:08 PM
Furthering that, a lot of mass murdered have been said to be interesting and nice people.

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 04:16 PM
A scammer can come across in many ways - even in the form of a delightful, ditzy "I just cant get my head around this science stuff" international student.
A scammer can spend a lot of time and effort to set the stage for the scam.
A scam doesnt always happen in a short time frame.

The scam here is to set herself up as the next famous woo who can scan the body for illness with the accuracy of an MRI machine and perhaps even perform gasp! psychic surgery!

Anita is a woo. A delusional woo? Fair enough call from those who would know. A delusional woo who dreams of one day making money and achieving fame through SCAMMING other desperate, gullible woos. Leon E Curry was a self described sceptic who "on a dare" phoned a housewife who was struck by lightning and could medically diagnose people after that event. The doctors scepticism was pushed aside as he witnessed the miracles. I doubt it is a happy coincidence that he and Anita have come across each other. In fact on the doctors guestbook there were a few other woos vying for his attention - maybe he will write a book about them, take them on the tour circuit with Sylvia - heck might even get on Oprah!!

Anita professes to be a sceptic. Yeh right. She believes that claim gives her some credibility - joining sceptic groups and running the scam by JREF.
Whoever said something about being the one Randi couldnt debunk is right.

As always, this is just my opinion although as a business owner I have seen many many scammers - some act like aholes and some of them are just as sweet as Anita seemed at first. She doesnt seem so sweet now, she sounds desperate.

wardenclyffe
3rd February 2009, 04:32 PM
OK, assuming that dirtygreek is who he (for the sake of this post, I'll assume that he's a male and not a female) claims to be, I think that the responses to his post are counterproductive. Another member of the skeptics group is willing to give his take on VfF after meeting her in person. Granted, he missed her "reading" of Wayne, but he was there and met her and presumably, he'll be there in the future and he's probably one of the skeptics willing to help her with her study (however flawed).

Suddenly, he's attacked from all sides. People offer "helpful" edits to his post. Generally, it seems like this new potentially very helpful poster is very unwelcome.

Yes, he fired the first shot by questioning the personalities of some of the other posters. He did not attack any one poster. I suspect that as we've read through the 2000+ posts here that we've all thought at one point or another, "I wouldn't have said it that way," or "That person has issues" about someone other than VfF.

While there's been some back and forth. We mostly keep our big traps shut. dirtygreek made a very generalized statement that we could all probably agree with and finds that he's walked into a snakepit.

He can probably handle it. He probably doesn't need me to defend him. I'm not really defending him, I'm defending the idea that it's not necessarily a great policy to attack a new poster immediately, especially when he has more immediate knowledge and access to VfF than any of us do.

I assume he showed up to help, and I'm guessing that he has real help to offer.

Is he an expert on scam vs. delusion? Probably not. Has he read this entire thread? Who among us hasn't skipped at least a few posts (or portions of posts)? He's not perfect, but rather than attacking him for incomplete information or not backing his analysis with clear evidence, we could probably more easily get the information we want by politely asking.

Sorry. I just think his welcome to the forum has been unnecessarily unfriendly and counterproductive.

Ward

Locknar
3rd February 2009, 04:38 PM
My two cents....I think we've drifted a bit off topic (ie. Vff's claims). While worth merit, I think discussion related to scammers belongs in a separate thread.

I suggested once, though will repeat it - I think there is merit for someone to actually conduct the test survey study what ever you want to call it.

Stating the obvious as it is currently designed, seems anyone could score well. You'd think a "brilliant student" would realize this but I digress.

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 04:39 PM
There , fixed it for you ... Personal incredulity doesn't count for much here.
Perhaps not, but personal opinions regarding personality do. Suppose he had said, "In person she's a fast talker. She reminded me of a used car salesman the way she twisted things around and tried to convince us what she was doing was real. She was like a carnival barker." Would that have been any value to you? It would have to me.

Since when can't a scammer be - soft spoken, not at all pushy, very genuinely nice and interesting ?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any scammers or frauds who use words to con people into paying for dubious services whom I would consider soft spoken and not pushy. Embezzlers? Absolutely - it's much easier to fly under the radar that way. But salesman and publicity hounds? Not so much.

Of course I will add that I am aware of. ;)

[B][Not] Endearing herself to the skeptical community [but instead alienating them and being mocked by them] could just be part of the set up; even though it may not be working for her in any way that we can comprehend.
Fixed it for you.

While she is avoiding a legitimate test, she can make claims about how hard she is trying to work out a testing protocol with card carrying skeptics, and cry foul when things don't go her way .
Cry foul to whom? So far, it's just us skeptics - a most unreceptive audience. Her website links directly to a thread where I flat out accuse her of being unskeptical, unreliable, and possibly mentally ill.

If she had cut us off completely and posted on her website that we couldn't figure out how to test her and that we attacked her, I'd be right there with you calling scam.

This is not an argument from incredulity. It's a matter of saying, "If someone is a fraud, this is what I would expect to see," and then not seeing it. My theory, of course, always subject to change.

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 05:10 PM
Suddenly, he's attacked from all sides.

No. We didn't pile on him. Three people responded to his post. Then Farencue took the discussion back to what was being discussed before he posted.

People offer "helpful" edits to his post.

No. One person offered a reasonable edit to his post.

Generally, it seems like this new potentially very helpful poster is very unwelcome.

I don't think so. I welcome his opinion on his first hand experience of Anita, and any future ones. I just don't see the necessity for taking pot shots. "Attack the posts, not the posters." Like it or not, and I've read this thread several times, none of us have taken swipes at Anita's personality - just her claims and her apparently delusional thinking.

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 05:30 PM
A scammer can spend a lot of time and effort to set the stage for the scam.
A scam doesnt always happen in a short time frame.

Sounds reasonable. Do you have some examples? We've heard stories of con artists working an individual for a long period of time in an effort to get a big payoff in the end. Do you have examples of con artists spending long periods of time working people they do not intend to scam?

The scam here is to set herself up as the next famous woo who can scan the body for illness with the accuracy of an MRI machine and perhaps even perform gasp! psychic surgery!
Any examples of someone who has taken a similar approach? By that I mean devoting countless hours and tens of thousands of words to the skeptical as a set up in order to scam the gullible at some later time?

Along those lines, how many psychic, homeopathic and audiophool websites link back to this or any other skeptic website? Not many. Those that do do it like The Professor, who tries to make the JREF out to be fools and frauds (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.jimclass.com+randi&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS275US275).

It seems to me that in order to be a scammer, she's taking a radical new approach or is exceedingly bad at it. In my experience those who are exceedingly bad at it tend to try to close the deal too early rather than wait for too long.

I doubt it is a happy coincidence that he and Anita have come across each other.
She wrote an entry in his guestbook in late November of 2008, close to 18 months after her website first went up. The very next day he responded on her website. Nothing since.

Whoever said something about being the one Randi couldnt debunk is right.
So why link to a thread where I flat out accuse her of being unskeptical, unreliable, and possibly mentally ill? Wanna see a scammer in action? Go to The Professor's site at JimClass dot com. Go read his posts on Magic Cafe. A recent one reads:
Slim sat in the Devils Chair and not only heard the voice but got a recording (EVP) he made the prediction based upon that and will be hitting the air waves again with the proof.

I wonder why the JREF put an end to his test?

Could it be they were afraid of loosing the $1,000,000.00 they get to keep if they do not give it out?
(Kind of suspicious say I).

That's how you work it.

As always, this is just my opinion although as a business owner I have seen many many scammers - some act like aholes and some of them are just as sweet as Anita seemed at first. She doesnt seem so sweet now, she sounds desperate.
She's back to being sweet since her actual test is no longer imminent. That aside, how do you rank her on her skills as a scammer? I know it's hard to judge since she hasn't actually scammed anybody yet, but you get the idea.

LONGTABBER PE
3rd February 2009, 05:49 PM
Fair enough. For my own reasons, I still leans towards a combination of delusional/scam, but I accept that your conclusion might equally be true. Only time will tell.

Anita, of course, protests that she is just a science student looking to explain experiences that have happened to her, but her constant contradictions and irrationality indicate otherwise. IMO, if the 'study' doesn't yield results that point to a paranormal ability, she will disregard them and continue proclaiming herself a "psychic medical diagnostician", inventing "accurate", anecdotal results repeatedly in the future.

I am curious as to your opinion on, if Anita is running a scam, why here? Obviously, in the beginning, she may have had the hope that she could 'fool the skeptics', but is pretty apparent that no one believes a word she says at this point. Why persevere? She can't sell us anything, and if her presence here is so she can proclaim to have discussed this with skeptics (and/or twist our words for her website as she did Unca's and Miss Kitt's), then she has done that. She has no interest, really, in using any protocol or scale that anyone here presents. It's baffling. (If this has been asked and answered before, I apologize-haven't had the chance to go back through the thread.)

>>>For my own reasons, I still leans towards a combination of delusional/scam, but I accept that your conclusion might equally be true. Only time will tell.

Thats cool, thats why different eyes see the "whole" thing. You have direct experience in areas I dont and yes, only time will tell.

>>>I am curious as to your opinion on, if Anita is running a scam, why here? Obviously, in the beginning, she may have had the hope that she could 'fool the skeptics', but is pretty apparent that no one believes a word she says at this point. Why persevere? She can't sell us anything, and if her presence here is so she can proclaim to have discussed this with skeptics (and/or twist our words for her website as she did Unca's and Miss Kitt's), then she has done that. She has no interest, really, in using any protocol or scale that anyone here presents. It's baffling.

Heres the way I see it. ( again, this is based soley on posted words and no personal contact or in depth investigation so its no more than an opinion)

She is using all of this as a "testing sandbox" for future use.

scammers dont care about boards like this "outing" them because boards like this dont have any firepower. ( if they did, no fraud could survive) I believe she is "testing the waters" so she can develop answers, NOT for skeptics but to satiate the followers who are sure to come. Its obvious to me for these reasons.

1) she deliberately came here and is "in control" of her world

2) she came here with an agenda ( start a controversy)

3) she has let some of her goals out with other sites.

4) she isnt here to sell, she is here to see what she is up against and to find ways around it.

tsig
3rd February 2009, 05:58 PM
Sounds reasonable. Do you have some examples? We've heard stories of con artists working an individual for a long period of time in an effort to get a big payoff in the end. Do you have examples of con artists spending long periods of time working people they do not intend to scam?


Any examples of someone who has taken a similar approach? By that I mean devoting countless hours and tens of thousands of words to the skeptical as a set up in order to scam the gullible at some later time?

Along those lines, how many psychic, homeopathic and audiophool websites link back to this or any other skeptic website? Not many. Those that do do it like The Professor, who tries to make the JREF out to be fools and frauds (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.jimclass.com+randi&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS275US275).

It seems to me that in order to be a scammer, she's taking a radical new approach or is exceedingly bad at it. In my experience those who are exceedingly bad at it tend to try to close the deal too early rather than wait for too long.


She wrote an entry in his guestbook in late November of 2008, close to 18 months after her website first went up. The very next day he responded on her website. Nothing since.


So why link to a thread where I flat out accuse her of being unskeptical, unreliable, and possibly mentally ill? Wanna see a scammer in action? Go to The Professor's site at JimClass dot com. Go read his posts on Magic Cafe. A recent one reads:


That's how you work it.


She's back to being sweet since her actual test is no longer imminent. That aside, how do you rank her on her skills as a scammer? I know it's hard to judge since she hasn't actually scammed anybody yet, but you get the idea.

I'd rate them excellent. She has you by the nose.

Skeptical Greg
3rd February 2009, 06:12 PM
I don't see her as a scammer in the classical sense, i.e . setting us up for some big pay off in the near future.

I see her as using the JREF forums as part of a plan to launch a woo career .

Her initial

" Hi y'all, I think I have these marvelous abilities, and want you to help me test them .. "

... just doesn't fly anymore..

She's clearly intelligent enough to know she doesn't have these abilities, so the logical assumption is that she is after something else besides have the skeptical community help her test for them .

Come on people. The Emperor is in his underwear ..

tsig
3rd February 2009, 06:33 PM
I don't see her as a scammer in the classical sense, i.e . setting us up for some big pay off in the near future.

I see her as using the JREF forums as part of a plan to launch a woo career .

Her initial

" Hi y'all, I think I have these marvelous abilities, and won't you to help me test them .. "

... just doesn't fly anymore..

She's clearly intelligent enough to know she doesn't have these abilities, so the logical assumption is that she is after something else besides have the skeptical community help her test for them .

Come on people. The Emperor is in his underwear ..

The true story of the Emperor’s new clothes.

We all know the story but here’s how it really happened.

As the Emperor was parading a voice rang out “He’s naked”. Immediately two guards grabbed the child and took him before the chief courtier who asked “Do you not see how fine and well tailored this toga and mantle are?” the child answered “Truly I see nothing” The courtier replied “ Are you a tailor?” the child answered “No”
“And what do you know of silk, gold thread and weaving”? The courtier demanded. “Nothing sir” the child replied. “Since you know nothing then you will see nothing” said the courtier.

He then ordered the child blinded and executed.

After that the crowd saw the Emperor’s clothes quite well.

Gmonster2
3rd February 2009, 06:46 PM
ITs obvious even she knows she doesn't have these abilities.

After 3 months of all talk an no action there's no results for pups chemical test.

She hasnt bothered to get her crystals out.

Twice at the skeptics group and no tests.

Deep down she knows shes got nothing thats why the main claim on health perceptions has been watered down to a guessing game / study.

Shes doing the rope a dope on any testing its plain for all to see.

The woman from the link i posted brent atwater does distant energy healing sessions for hundreds to thousands of dollars, its a real nice earner work from home, be your own boss.This human MRI machine was "tested" at 5yrs old and was born in 1947!

Vff the clairsentient is nothing new. She's a copycat nutbar.

JWideman
3rd February 2009, 06:51 PM
LONGTABBER PE:
I look at people and I perceive health information. My perceptions have had apparent correlation to the actual health of persons. There is no delusion or scam involved in that. I am merely working toward a scientific explanation. It could be unintentional cold reading. It could be ESP. It could be that the accuracy is not as good as it had seemed to be once in a controlled test situation. I want to find out.

That you see things that nobody else does is either hallucination or imagination. That sometimes there is a correlation is coincidence. That what you claim is a correlation is in fact not a correlation is dishonesty. What the delusion is, is your belief that you have this ability, that you're an alien, that you talk to ghosts, etc.
When you started posting, I thought you had a fascinating type of synesthesia. Now I see you're just a bag full of crazy.

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 07:11 PM
UncaYimmy
You have addressed me personally. First of all I have not linked to any of your posts, I have never addressed you personally and up until now I did not wish to do so.
Secondly, you dont seem very happy that I have come into this thread and given my opinion.
I am speaking from my own experience with scammers. I have been scammed in my business more than once. I was also employed by an Australian state government in the police department many years ago and so have had experience of other people's misfortune with scammers.

You are speaking from your experience with international students.
In one of my intial posts when I asked a question of another member you took it upon yourself to answer and say something to the effect that as far as you are concerned the matter was settled, even though you did not address what I was actually getting at - I can assure you it wasnt about whether Anita is Swedish or not. That is totally irrelevant to me.

I have read through this incredible thread and done some digging around of my own. I respectfully suggest if you wish to learn more about scammers and people who claim to perform psychic surgery, that you do your own research instead of scoffing at what I am trying to say.
Finally I would have preferred to address you personally to thank you for the things I have learnt on this thread from yourself, as I said in my introductory post I do not possess much education and quite a lot of people here including Ashles have taught me a lot.
We are all entitled to our opinion and my opinion is that Anita is a future scammer of gullible woos. if you do not agree with my opinion then thats what makes it such an interesting world to live in - in my opinion of course.

Respectfully
Farencue

Jonquill
3rd February 2009, 07:24 PM
Wouldn't most well bought up young ladies be sweet and quiet when meeting with a whole bunch of strangers at a new club?
It's pretty easy to be well behaved for an hour or so, sometimes you have to know someone for quite a while before you start to see their true colours emerging.

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 07:34 PM
Jonquill, the ability to charm is a characteristic of some mental illnesses and of confidence tricksters. Not saying confidence tricksters are mentally ill or that the mentally ill are confidence tricksters.

Jonquill
3rd February 2009, 07:36 PM
Can you be a confidence trickster and mentally ill at the same time?

Maybe she thinks she is tricking us into helping her get a Nobel prize for example?

desertgal
3rd February 2009, 07:39 PM
I'd rate them excellent. She has you by the nose.

No. Anita's thousands of words are consistent with delusional thinking. They could also be consistent with running a scam. As noted repeatedly, the jury is still out.

But, to clarify the reason for believing she is displaying delusional thinking, let's look at this recent post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4386128&postcount=1819), which, to me, just reeks of delusion.

For those of you who have expressed concern for my mental well-being, I can only thank you since I presume that it was done out of caring and with my best interest in mind, and also I need to seriously think about what reasons have emerged to make you feel this way.

IOW, "it's not ME. It's YOU." Is that a delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

Meanwhile I still contend that the visual and felt information I perceive from when I look at people are not in themselves any reason for concern. The perceptions of organs and tissue or of pain that I perceive when I see other people are on the same level as other impressions that form on their own in people's minds due to other things and association...Such are my medical perceptions, that they are more like impressions. The perceptions, in themselves, are no reason for concern.

That is significantly different from her original claim. Is adjusting a story to perpetuate a delusional reality a delusional characteristic? Absolutely. It also might indicate that reality is beginning to intrude on Anita's delusional world, and she's desperate to find some way to straddle that fence and still remain "extraordinary".

I hold no automatic belief in the perceptions.

This is patently ridiculous. If she didn't believe in her perceptions, she would not be here. She would not have contacted IIG, or built a website. Is that type of denial a delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

The perceptions in themselves are not of interest to me.

Also patently ridiculous. She's emphasized, several times, how much she enjoys her perceptions of the human body-the beauty of tissue, etc etc. And, again, if the perceptions themselves were not of interest to her, she wouldn't be here. Is that type of denial a delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

Those two statements above are a perfect example of what Unca is referring to when it comes to how poorly she is manipulating her claims. Is poor manipulation of claims and blatant contradictions a delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

The only reason I am conducting an investigation into my experience with the perceptions is due to the apparent correlation between my medical perceptions and with the actual health of persons. Although I do realize the unreliability that exists whenever a person decides to understand or to explore their own subjective experience, which is why I would probably not trust my own judgement alone when saying that I have experienced this correlation. This apparent accuracy has been established by other people as well, and by means in which I have no direct involvement or influence.

a) She is trusting her own judgment alone. She certainly has proven that she refuses to accept any other opinion than her own when it comes to those "perceptions". b) No apparent accuracy has been established by any other person other than in her mind. A delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

Based on that experience I have become curious about the apparent accuracy of my perceptions, and this curiosity comes not from my own choices or interpretations, but by what has been suggested to me by what takes takes place in the world around me and with other people.

Yet more hogwash. She's not curious about the accuracy of her perceptions - in her mind, she's already established the accuracy of her perceptions. That is perfectly clear from the anecdotes on her website, and her new "body art". She just wants to convince others. A delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

Furthermore the way in which I deal with this inquiry into my perceptions shows to me that my approach to it also should not be reason of concern.

Okay, if that sentence actually made sense, then one would have to call hogwash. Her approach to this 'study' is incredibly sloppy. She is jumping through hoops to come up with a protocol and a scale that will give her the result she wants - proof of her paranormal ability. A delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

I do not choose to blindly believe that I am perceiving accurate health information. I do not make any assumptions regarding my experience. I do not use my past experiences as evidence for anything.

We know those three statements are outright lies. Is lying to perpetuate a delusional reality a delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

I am fully prepared to accept the results of the investigation. My objective is to find out the truth behind the perceptions and their actual accuracy. I am prepared to find out that the actual accuracy is not after all as high as the accuracy has appeared to be in the past.

I think it is fair to say, based on the thousands of words she has posted here, that these statements do not reflect the truth, but are, instead, manipulatively disingenuous. A delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

For instance people might have been lying to me or simply mistaken about their health leading to a false impression of correlation but not due to me.

IOW, "If I have been wrong in the past, then it wasn't ME. It was THEM."

In case I am perceiving accurate health information, then I am of course open to discover that the information originates from cold reading. Perhaps I am using some skill without knowing it that translates external clues into corresponding health information.

Of course, she is just repeating herself for the sake of convincing us. Another delusional trait.

Personally I would find this conclusion to be equally as fascinating as a real case of extrasensory perception. And do note, that extrasensory perception is somewhat on the bottom of my list of expected possibilities.

I think it is safe to say, judging from the "Body Art", that this is manipulatively disingenuous, as well.

From the way in which I have conducted this investigation so far I see no reason for concern for my mental well-being.

Delusional people are never capable of recognizing their delusional state. Ever. It just doesn't happen.

I have contacted two skeptics groups and taken in* all of their advice and been fully conforming to their suggestions regarding how a test of my claimed experience should take place. And according to the suggestions of these skeptics I am now conducting a study into my experience.

*She's done this play on words before.

Otherwise, the statement is obviously not true. But, to her, it might well be. A delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

The purpose of the study of course is first of all to falsify a non-ability at this early stage, as well as to find out more about what are the kind of things that I claim to perceive, and what the correlation might be to how people perceive and know their own health. If the study reveals a significant extent of correlation between what I perceive and the actual health of persons then of course a paranormal test is an appropriate next step.

Which would explain why she is working so hard to ensure that that "correlation" takes place.

I see nothing wrong with engaging in a scientific inquiry into an unusual experience. I am seeking a rational explanation to the apparent correlation that I have experienced.

Blah, blah, blah. More repetition of the same delusional pattern of thinking.

The way in which this investigation is being done, should also not be of concern. I have consistently emphasized great care to ensure that none of the people who take part in my inquiry come to any harm, and even though many of you skeptics here at the JREF Forum have ridiculed my efforts of ensuring no harm, I have strongly and firmly encorporated all necessary care into the design of my investigation.

Delusional? Absolutely. Because there is no way for her to "ensure" that her victims subjects don't come to harm. Her "great care" consists of protecting herself, not them. And, of course, she includes that woo mantra: "It's not ME. It's YOU."

It should be clear that I show great consideration for the possible legal, moral, ethical, and practical complications that may come about in a paranormal investigation that due to the mere subject of this inquiry is not only controversial and provocative to many, but due to involving health information of persons may involve possible harm if done in a careless way.

Blah, blah, blah. This is just a woo covering her bases so she won't be blamed if anything goes wrong.

Of course it has already been a year and a half since I begun this investigation, but there are no intentional reasons for me to delay the progress of this investigation. There really have been practical difficulties and in combination with the careful approach that I adopt and my obligations with life and studies that have delayed the advance of this study.

Blah, blah, blah. This reads more like Anita trying to convince herself that it's not HER fault-it's everything and everyone else. Gee, where have we heard that before? Let me think...

I am not here seeking attention in fact it should be clear if viewed from an objective perspective that I have done what I can to avoid placing any attention on myself as a person and trying to ensure that focus remains on the subject of inquiry which is the medical perceptions and how to test their accuracy and source to see whether it correlates with what I have experienced.

IOW, "pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain, but DO pay attention to the Great and Powerful Oz."

I have noticed no delusional behavior on my part.

And, again, delusional people are never capable of recognizing their delusional state. Ever. It just doesn't happen.

And by the way, I did not make two incorrect perceptions on the recent study with one of the skeptics.

Well, obviously, several people here have pointed out that the opposite is true, but is refusal to face reality or admit an error a delusional characteristic? Absolutely.

A lot of the upset on this thread comes, I believe, from the deliberate intent to find something negative against me and from actual misinterpretation of what was said and done on my part.

"It's not ME. It's YOU."

Due to how anything I say here is treated by you skeptics I do have reason to doubt the value of some of your judgement. If you consider how I was treated after saying that I am from Sweden, that I am studying two B.S. degrees at the same time, that my family is not overly excited about my perceptions, and all other ordinary and trivial things and how you have reacted to these things, then I can not hold much value in your judgement in the more serious topics.

"It's not ME. It's YOU."

I have listened very carefully to most of what has been said here and I can safely conclude to myself that I find no reason for concern.

As Unca already pointed out, Anita has a slight tendency to repeat herself.

As to the other things that I may have expressed here that stir up some commotion among you. The reference to Arcturian heritage is not something I have stated as evidence or fact. To consider oneself a Star Person is a form of cultural identity, simply relating to interests and personal characteristics that are mutually not that common, such as a very caring and unselfish nature, interests in science, technology and spirituality, and relating to a concept of self and the world that is bigger than the current boundaries of our world. As for my experience of ghosts there is also no reason for concern (unless they push me off a chair).

How delusional that statement is is glaringly apparent, so I won't elaborate. It's a good example of Anita clinging to her delusion that she is "extraordinary", though.

I feel that much of the distress expressed by Forum members is due the delay in progress and their impatience with it. Clearly most of the criticism against me has been unfounded, and I feel that the recent upset about whether I am delusional is just the most recent expression of your complaining nature. There must always be something to argue about for you guys. Had I not offered to present evidence that I originate from Sweden we would probably still be arguing about that.

"It's not ME. It's YOU."

This investigation will yield final results, which I will adhere to. <snipped for repetitiveness> But at this point I think I am doing just fine.

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. Delusional characteristics included? Absolutely.

Does all this mean that she may be a future scammer of gullible woos? Absolutely. Or she may just be a delusional gal looking for attention to perpetuate the delusion.

Jeff Corey
3rd February 2009, 07:46 PM
Anybody know of anybody on this board who could run some numbers for us? Is FLS a statistician?

Ashles, since Anita told IIG that she needed people to be in pain for the test, how about we only count a limited set of time frames? Just eliminating within the year or longer than a year would reduce the number of eligible check marks considerably but still give her the data she wants.
I teach experimental psych and part of that is reteaching stat. However, I would not touch a clusterfork like Anita's Mess O' Data with a 3 meter pole. I believe it was Ashles who pointed out earlier that you have to plan out the whole study, including the appropriate stat, first.
Even my less than A average undergraduates manage to master that concept.
This whole "study" is a waste of time and cannot demonstrate anything of value.

Jonquill
3rd February 2009, 07:51 PM
Farencue, are you suggesting that someone other than Anita (an American) is writing some of the material? Like a team effort?

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 07:52 PM
Thankyou desertgal for the very informative posts you have made about delusional thinking. I understand you have personal experience yourself and appreciate you being so forthright.
All the best to you!

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 08:04 PM
Jonquill,
It is my belief that Anita is not what she makes herself out to be.
Please note that I am not talking about things such as her nationality or her university studies. I think it is blatantly obvious that she is here to build a platform for her future endeavours as a master of woo.
Others think she is delusional and in need of psychiatric assistance.
ETA* Perhaps it is both.

Jonquill
3rd February 2009, 08:09 PM
dirtygreek - what were your impressions of Anita's friend Chris?
Was it her boyfriend? Was was he like?

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 08:46 PM
I'd rate them excellent. She has you by the nose.

If you mean that I consider her to be unreliable at best and mentally ill at worst and haven't dismissed the idea that she's a scammer, then, yes, she has me by the nose.

tsig
3rd February 2009, 09:14 PM
[QUOTE=UncaYimmy;4404098]If you mean that I consider her to be unreliable at best and mentally ill at worst and haven't dismissed the idea that she's a scammer, then, yes, she has me by the nose.[/QUOTE/]

Maybe I was just trying to prove a point and didn't mean anything I said in that post.

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 09:31 PM
I teach experimental psych and part of that is reteaching stat. However, I would not touch a clusterfork like Anita's Mess O' Data with a 3 meter pole. I believe it was Ashles who pointed out earlier that you have to plan out the whole study, including the appropriate stat, first.
Even my less than A average undergraduates manage to master that concept.
This whole "study" is a waste of time and cannot demonstrate anything of value.

Thanks, Jeff. I agree with you that what she has designed is a waste of time. I designed my version about as quickly as I could type and format because I wanted to post it in time for it to be brought to the first skeptics meeting (it was, but it was not used).

My goal was to make it as specific as I felt reasonable given the time constraints. For example, issues with each arm were broken down into joint pain (fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder) and muscle pain (shoulder, biceps, triceps, forearm). It was a yes/no proposition based on pain within the last 30 days. I figured even if somebody was stretching their arm like it was sore, it would still be pretty difficult to guess which of the 8 choices was the cause of the pain.

Likewise neck and back pain were broken down into direction of movement (three for neck, three for back) and muscle pain (neck, upper left, upper right, middle, lower, left hip, right hip). Thus while these types of pains might be noticeable to the observant (fidgeting, stretching), it would be more difficult (certainly not impossible) to guess the exact location out of 13 choices. Unless, of course, you had Vibrational Information™ at your disposal.

Any false positives would have been a step in the right direction. Had she used the form with Wayne, we would likely have had two false positives and no hits. At the worst it would have been 0 for 0.

Though I didn't crunch any numbers, I assumed that being this specific would result in relatively few check marks by most people. I based this on myself, someone who has a large number of aches and pains (comparison based on personal experience) as well as dental issues, vision issues, and a few surgeries. Even I would only check 13 out of nearly 100 choices.

I figured my form stood a good chance of revealing that something was not there providing she actually took some guesses. I doubt it would be good enough to prove something was there, but with Anita there is no need to prove that. She already has Apparent Accuracy™ sitting in the bank.

ETA: Her form allows for way too many check marks to be able to produce many false positives even if her guesses are totally random.

tsig
3rd February 2009, 09:48 PM
Thanks, Jeff. I agree with you that what she has designed is a waste of time. I designed my version about as quickly as I could type and format because I wanted to post it in time for it to be brought to the first skeptics meeting (it was, but it was not used).

My goal was to make it as specific as I felt reasonable given the time constraints. For example, issues with each arm were broken down into joint pain (fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder) and muscle pain (shoulder, biceps, triceps, forearm). It was a yes/no proposition based on pain within the last 30 days. I figured even if somebody was stretching their arm like it was sore, it would still be pretty difficult to guess which of the 8 choices was the cause of the pain.

Likewise neck and back pain were broken down into direction of movement (three for neck, three for back) and muscle pain (neck, upper left, upper right, middle, lower, left hip, right hip). Thus while these types of pains might be noticeable to the observant (fidgeting, stretching), it would be more difficult (certainly not impossible) to guess the exact location out of 13 choices. Unless, of course, you had Vibrational Information™ at your disposal.

Any false positives would have been a step in the right direction. Had she used the form with Wayne, we would likely have had two false positives and no hits. At the worst it would have been 0 for 0.

Though I didn't crunch any numbers, I assumed that being this specific would result in relatively few check marks by most people. I based this on myself, someone who has a large number of aches and pains (comparison based on personal experience) as well as dental issues, vision issues, and a few surgeries. Even I would only check 13 out of nearly 100 choices.

I figured my form stood a good chance of revealing that something was not there providing she actually took some guesses. I doubt it would be good enough to prove something was there, but with Anita there is no need to prove that. She already has Apparent Accuracy™ sitting in the bank.

ETA: Her form allows for way too many check marks to be able to produce many false positives even if her guesses are totally random.

There is nothing to test it's all words. Acting like there is something there is pandering to ignorance.

This post is the word of god.

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 10:33 PM
UncaYimmy
You have addressed me personally. First of all I have not linked to any of your posts, I have never addressed you personally and up until now I did not wish to do so.
Yes, I addressed you personally by quoting your message. That's customary. Was this a problem?

Secondly, you dont seem very happy that I have come into this thread and given my opinion.
Quite the contrary but irrelevant. We all make our points with the expectation that somebody is sure to disagree. All we can ask for is that our arguments are addressed rather than our personalities.

I am speaking from my own experience with scammers. I have been scammed in my business more than once. I was also employed by an Australian state government in the police department many years ago and so have had experience of other people's misfortune with scammers.
That's good to know. So when I say, "If Anita was a scammer, I would expect her to do X instead of Y" then you can say, "In a similar situation the scammer did X." In response I might say, "I don't think that's similar because <whatever>." Or perhaps I will say, "Interesting. I would not have expected that."

You are speaking from your experience with international students.
Only in the specific issue of providing an opinion regarding the possibility that Anita is lying about being an international student from Sweden.

I am the youngest of six children. My father, a CPA, owned several businesses over the years with both consumers and businesses as clients. He was also the CFO of a company that built shopping centers and office buildings and as such dealt with numerous types of businesses, many of them shady. Four of us have owned and operated businesses.

Two of us still do. My brother has owned an auto repair shop for 20 years. All of my clients are business owners, many of them in real estate (apartment building owners, mortgage brokers). I spent a year as a bill collector. I've been a landlord myself. My other brother has spent the last 20 years as the controller for three different non-profits, all of which have been politically based. He deals with politicians on a regular basis and has met at least a couple of presidents.

Starting when I was a kid, dinner conversation has centered around business and politics. To this day when we talk, it's about business. And when you're talking about construction, auto repair, landlords, and politicians, scam artists always come up.

Does that make me an expert on scammers? Nope, but it certainly makes me an experienced layman.

In one of my intial posts when I asked a question of another member you took it upon yourself to answer and say something to the effect that as far as you are concerned the matter was settled, even though you did not address what I was actually getting at - I can assure you it wasnt about whether Anita is Swedish or not. That is totally irrelevant to me.
I was responding to this:
Jonquill, I notice that Anita uses a lot of what I call "Americanisms" in her written speech, I thought it unusual for someone who has not been in the country a good while. An example of an "Americanism" is "you bet" along with a few others but of course I could be wrong.
Since you say that her being Swedish is irrelevant, then what is your point? You brought up a language issue. I responded to a language issue. If I missed the point, then please make it.

I respectfully suggest if you wish to learn more about scammers and people who claim to perform psychic surgery, that you do your own research instead of scoffing at what I am trying to say.
Obviously I do not know what it is you are trying to say since my response about "Americanisms" was off the mark.

If you have done research on scammers and psychic surgeons, then share what you have learned.

Finally I would have preferred to address you personally to thank you for the things I have learnt on this thread from yourself, as I said in my introductory post I do not possess much education and quite a lot of people here including Ashles have taught me a lot.
If you are under the impression that I care about your lack of education, you are mistaken. Just say what you have to say. Some will agree and others won't. Such is the makings of a lively discussion.

If you had a doctorate in some area, it would matter in the sense that if your facts seemed accurate, I probably wouldn't double-check them or ask for citations. As for your opinions, it would depend on whether your degree gave you some expertise on the subject. Even then I would expect you to defend your position just like I would expect anyone else (myself included) to do.

We are all entitled to our opinion and my opinion is that Anita is a future scammer of gullible woos. if you do not agree with my opinion then thats what makes it such an interesting world to live in - in my opinion of course.
I don't often use "in my opinion" because it's always my opinion. When I give facts, I usually give citations. I expect the same from others.

But let me ask you this about your opinion of Anita as a future scammer. What could she have done thus far or do in the future to a) convince you she's not a scammer and/or b)convince you she is delusional.

I have already pointed out several things, past and future, that would change my mind from delusional to scammer.

tsig
3rd February 2009, 10:59 PM
Yes, I addressed you personally by quoting your message. That's customary. Was this a problem?


Quite the contrary but irrelevant. We all make our points with the expectation that somebody is sure to disagree. All we can ask for is that our arguments are addressed rather than our personalities.


That's good to know. So when I say, "If Anita was a scammer, I would expect her to do X instead of Y" then you can say, "In a similar situation the scammer did X." In response I might say, "I don't think that's similar because <whatever>." Or perhaps I will say, "Interesting. I would not have expected that."


Only in the specific issue of providing an opinion regarding the possibility that Anita is lying about being an international student from Sweden.

I am the youngest of six children. My father, a CPA, owned several businesses over the years with both consumers and businesses as clients. He was also the CFO of a company that built shopping centers and office buildings and as such dealt with numerous types of businesses, many of them shady. Four of us have owned and operated businesses.

Two of us still do. My brother has owned an auto repair shop for 20 years. All of my clients are business owners, many of them in real estate (apartment building owners, mortgage brokers). I spent a year as a bill collector. I've been a landlord myself. My other brother has spent the last 20 years as the controller for three different non-profits, all of which have been politically based. He deals with politicians on a regular basis and has met at least a couple of presidents.

Starting when I was a kid, dinner conversation has centered around business and politics. To this day when we talk, it's about business. And when you're talking about construction, auto repair, landlords, and politicians, scam artists always come up.

Does that make me an expert on scammers? Nope, but it certainly makes me an experienced layman.


I was responding to this:

Since you say that her being Swedish is irrelevant, then what is your point? You brought up a language issue. I responded to a language issue. If I missed the point, then please make it.


Obviously I do not know what it is you are trying to say since my response about "Americanisms" was off the mark.

If you have done research on scammers and psychic surgeons, then share what you have learned.


If you are under the impression that I care about your lack of education, you are mistaken. Just say what you have to say. Some will agree and others won't. Such is the makings of a lively discussion.

If you had a doctorate in some area, it would matter in the sense that if your facts seemed accurate, I probably wouldn't double-check them or ask for citations. As for your opinions, it would depend on whether your degree gave you some expertise on the subject. Even then I would expect you to defend your position just like I would expect anyone else (myself included) to do.


I don't often use "in my opinion" because it's always my opinion. When I give facts, I usually give citations. I expect the same from others.

But let me ask you this about your opinion of Anita as a future scammer. What could she have done thus far or do in the future to a) convince you she's not a scammer and/or b)convince you she is delusional.

I have already pointed out several things, past and future, that would change my mind from delusional to scammer.

Your state of mind is not the point of this thread.

tsig
3rd February 2009, 11:06 PM
[QUOTE=UncaYimmy;4404291]Yes, I addressed you personally by quoting your message. That's customary. Was this a problem?


Quite the contrary but irrelevant. We all make our points with the expectation that somebody is sure to disagree. All we can ask for is that our arguments are addressed rather than our personalities.


That's good to know. So when I say, "If Anita was a scammer, I would expect her to do X instead of Y" then you can say, "In a similar situation the scammer did X." In response I might say, "I don't think that's similar because <whatever>." Or perhaps I will say, "Interesting. I would not have expected that."


Only in the specific issue of providing an opinion regarding the possibility that Anita is lying about being an international student from Sweden.

I am the youngest of six children. My father, a CPA, owned several businesses over the years with both consumers and businesses as clients. He was also the CFO of a company that built shopping centers and office buildings and as such dealt with numerous types of businesses, many of them shady. Four of us have owned and operated businesses.

Two of us still do. My brother has owned an auto repair shop for 20 years. All of my clients are business owners, many of them in real estate (apartment building owners, mortgage brokers). I spent a year as a bill collector. I've been a landlord myself. My other brother has spent the last 20 years as the controller for three different non-profits, all of which have been politically based. He deals with politicians on a regular basis and has met at least a couple of presidents.

Starting when I was a kid, dinner conversation has centered around business and politics. To this day when we talk, it's about business. And when you're talking about construction, auto repair, landlords, and politicians, scam artists always come up.

Does that make me an expert on scammers? Nope, but it certainly makes me an experienced layman.


I was responding to this:

Since you say that her being Swedish is irrelevant, then what is your point? You brought up a language issue. I responded to a language issue. If I missed the point, then please make it.


Obviously I do not know what it is you are trying to say since my response about "Americanisms" was off the mark.

If you have done research on scammers and psychic surgeons, then share what you have learned.


If you are under the impression that I care about your lack of education, you are mistaken. Just say what you have to say. Some will agree and others won't. Such is the makings of a lively discussion.

If you had a doctorate in some area, it would matter in the sense that if your facts seemed accurate, I probably wouldn't double-check them or ask for citations. As for your opinions, it would depend on whether your degree gave you some expertise on the subject. Even then I would expect you to defend your position just like I would expect anyone else (myself included) to do.


I don't often use "in my opinion" because it's always my opinion. When I give facts, I usually give citations. I expect the same from others.

But let me ask you this about your opinion of Anita as a future scammer. What could she have done thus far or do in the future to a) convince you she's not a scammer and/or b)convince you she is delusional.

I have already pointed out several things, past and future, that would change my mind from delusional to scammer.[/QUOTE

nAda

Farencue
3rd February 2009, 11:14 PM
UncaYimmy
I think, as a new poster, I would prefer to let you be the self proclaimed expert on this thread.
Thankyou
Farencue

Uncayimmy
3rd February 2009, 11:34 PM
Anything Anita puts down as N, 1 or 2 will be omitted from the Hit, Miss analysis. Her marking 3 to a volunteer's 1 will be omitted.
If you mark down symptoms of something as 2 or higher and Anita marks it 3 or higher then, to be honest, I think it is fair enough to consider that a Hit within the parameters of this unofficial study.
If someone marks almost everything as 2 or higher then their form will skew the results. If someone has had pain of 2 or higher in all the places mentioned on the form then they really need to see a doctor.
Hmm...

Here's my first concern: There's absolutely no guidance on the Extent scale. Anybody who has tried to open a stubborn jar of jelly can attest to having level 1 pain in the hand/wrist sometime in their life. Anybody who has ever banged a knee on a coffee table in their life can check knee pain as a 1. Hell, that could be a 2 or a 3.

Even if you do give guidance, we're talking lifetimes here. I don't need to see a doctor just because I spent many years as an athlete and training with weights and thus felt level 2 pain or higher in just about every muscle and joint in my body at some point.

I can easily mark 90% of those ailments as a 2 or higher if I consider my entire lifetime, which is what the form asks. Who has never puked or had the runs? Who has never had a bad headache? Sprained an ankle or knee? Went hiking and got sore legs?

Anyway, in a real test this level of freedom of interpretation would not be allowed. This isn't a test and, to be honest, the number of Hits here are only peripherally relevant.
Then what is at the center of relevance? I'm missing it.

If we can get Anita to actually perform this study/test with the skeptics, we're only going to get one shot. Based on its current design, I don't see how see how my toddler could do worse than 50% accuracy. If that happens, we've only given her delusions (or scam) legitimacy.

The main point of my rather arbitrary figures is that it introduces a pre-agreed point of possible falsification which, as far as I can tell, has been completely absent in the 12 years Anita claims to have had this 'ability'.
It is simply a start point - an introduction to the concept of falsification, rather than anything I feel has any particular importance as a specific statistical cut-off point.
Agreeing that a percentage that a doctor couldn't possibly achieve if he was trying to get everything wrong is not productive. Of course she will agree to that.

If that happens, she'll have apparent accuracy and the credibility of the skeptics who were unable to falsify her claim of ESP.

It could easily be argued to alter the weightings or the ratio to be stricter on Anita (and more in line with real statistical analysis) but I feel that would lead Anita to reject it and, within this study, doesn't, inmy opinion, serve a particular purpose other than to simply remove the possibilty of falsification at this stage.
With the next stage being what?

Also if Anita rejected this definition of falsification then it is clear she would reject anything and therefore is not genuinely interested in having any sort of falsification scenario.
So, you're saying that getting Anita to agree to a falsification scenario that is nearly impossible to attain is a step in the right direction? And if she does the study, then what?

The study, if it goes ahead, is almost certain to use Anita's new forms. Nobody likes these forms except Anita, but it looks like they aren't going to change.
Better a stalemate than a surrender.

There is also agreement by both Anita and skeptics that this test cannot in any way provide evidence towards suggesting the existence of any 'ability'. So I don't see it is a huge problem to use the figures and assumptions I have made.
Right. Because she already believes she has this ability. Nobody else does. So when she does this study, she still believes it and we don't. Only now she can say that the skeptics failed to falsify her claim.

Whether she's delusional or a scammer, I cannot see how this is a good thing.

But of course I am open to suggestions or modifications.
First off, the form is not clear on how many time frames can be circled. It must be made clear that only the most recent can be circled and that the Extent relates to that time frame. Right now Florida voters would circle more than one Extent and time frame.

Second, define Extent. This is an example:
0 = No pain
1 = Mild pain
2 = Discomforting
3 = Distressing
4 = Intense
5 = Excruciating

See http://www.tipna.org/info/documents/ComparativePainScale.htm for more ideas.

Third, Anita has repeatedly emphasized the need for the pain or ailment to be current. My preference is to use only Now. However, I'm okay with Month. With this you will get a much smaller number of number of answers. Using your scale with a time frame of one month my answers drop from 37 down to 5.

Fourth, lets ask people her to complete the form but only report the number of eligible answers rather than the details. We can also ask family members to help out. This will at least give us a some baseline from which to work. We can then ask someone like Jeff Corey, "If we assume that on average people check X out of Y answers, then with a reasonable confidence how many matches would we expect from someone making totally random guesses?"

Jeff, of course, will point out all the flaws, but hopefully say, "Despite all these problems, this is what you should expect." We can then negotiate falsifiable from there.

godofpie
3rd February 2009, 11:39 PM
OK, assuming that dirtygreek is who he (for the sake of this post, I'll assume that he's a male and not a female) claims to be, I think that the responses to his post are counterproductive. Another member of the skeptics group is willing to give his take on VfF after meeting her in person. Granted, he missed her "reading" of Wayne, but he was there and met her and presumably, he'll be there in the future and he's probably one of the skeptics willing to help her with her study (however flawed).

Suddenly, he's attacked from all sides. People offer "helpful" edits to his post. Generally, it seems like this new potentially very helpful poster is very unwelcome.

Yes, he fired the first shot by questioning the personalities of some of the other posters. He did not attack any one poster. I suspect that as we've read through the 2000+ posts here that we've all thought at one point or another, "I wouldn't have said it that way," or "That person has issues" about someone other than VfF.

While there's been some back and forth. We mostly keep our big traps shut. dirtygreek made a very generalized statement that we could all probably agree with and finds that he's walked into a snakepit.

He can probably handle it. He probably doesn't need me to defend him. I'm not really defending him, I'm defending the idea that it's not necessarily a great policy to attack a new poster immediately, especially when he has more immediate knowledge and access to VfF than any of us do.

I assume he showed up to help, and I'm guessing that he has real help to offer.

Is he an expert on scam vs. delusion? Probably not. Has he read this entire thread? Who among us hasn't skipped at least a few posts (or portions of posts)? He's not perfect, but rather than attacking him for incomplete information or not backing his analysis with clear evidence, we could probably more easily get the information we want by politely asking.

Sorry. I just think his welcome to the forum has been unnecessarily unfriendly and counterproductive.

Ward
Thanks for sticking up for one of our new members. He is real and he was at our last meeting and he has not been treated very well so far in the forum. This thread has taken a nasty turn. IMO skepticism needs to be a very large tent. I welcome people like Anita. Below you will find a PM I sent to Anita yesterday and I have not heard back from her so I am going to post it here.

"Hi Anita-
I wanted to show you this before I posted it to the forum. Dr Carlson and I have been corresponding and he cc'd me on an email that he had sent to someone else. I have his permission to post the portion of his email that relates to his observations concerning Wayne. You are a nice person Anita and I don't want to hurt your feelings but you continue to point to your reading on Wayne as a success of your powers. I don't feel it was a success (for the reasons I stated in this post)http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...43#post4374843
and neither does Dr. Carlson. Below are his observations.
"I have had only a few meetings with Ms. Ikonen. Though I have dealt
>> with claimants in the past, most of them were referred to me by JREF,
>> and already more or less knew exactly what claim they were making. Ms.
>> Iknonen has not, thus far, made a specific testable claim. She asserts
>> that she can detect medical ailments by examining people, but in fact,
>> there is no ailment that she guarantees she will see with 100%, or even
>> high, efficiency. The one test we have performed with her involved her
>> looking at a person and attempting to detect any obvious medical
>> signals. She indicated, with considerable uncertainty, that there might
>> be a problem with the throat/thyroid or something like that, but marked
>> it with a low level of confidence. Eventually, the person told her she
>> was incorrect. He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she
>> could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."
re posted with permission from Dr Eric Carlson

If you respect Dr Carlson as much as you say you do, I think that it is important to follow the scientific method and design a study that will help us help you prove or disprove your paranormal claim. We are more than happy to help you if you are sincere but I don't think it is fair to our group to ask them to participate in something that is guaranteed to produce questionable results at best.
On a brighter note, I just read that you are trying to resolve the "hit or miss" problem with Ashles. That's great! If you can come to some kind of agreement with him what a hit is and what a miss is I think we are heading in the right direction. Good Luck!


Cynicism does not equal Skepticism
And ya'll need to lay off of the personal attacks.

Uncayimmy
4th February 2009, 12:01 AM
Correction to GodOfPie's link:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4374843#post4374843

Kuko 4000
4th February 2009, 02:58 AM
I welcome people like Anita.


Yes, especially this part of the forum (General Skepticism and The Paranormal) should WELCOME people who think they have supernatural abilities, etc. We have to keep in mind that almost every person with such beliefs will sound unbelievable to our sceptical ears, we shouldn't be surprised by this. If we want to achieve something good here (bringing the E part of the JREF foundation closer to the forums) we should try our very best to keep our heads cool and be as friendly and constructive as possible, no matter what, even if the other person seems completely hopeless to us. Yeah, nothing new, but something we could always keep in our minds if we want to make this an even better place for everyone involved.

LONGTABBER PE
4th February 2009, 04:04 AM
The problem I have with the scammer theory is this: Where is the parallel? By that I mean how many scammers have started on skeptic websites to begin their scam? The evidence is that 99.99% of the scammers avoid skeptic websites altogether. Those rare few that have approached typically want to take the challenge, which is a great way to get publicity.

In the case of The Professor he played it almost perfectly, even offering skeptics $25K for helping him win. He wanted his "test" to be publicized (in a cemetery at midnight on Halloween in the Devil's Chair). Even if it didn't "work," so what? All he had to hope for was some noise on a tape, which he could then claim said something. People will hear what they want to hear. If there was no noise, then he could accuse the JREF of doctoring the tapes or simply say, as Uri Geller has many times, his abilities are unreliable and difficult under laboratory conditions.

He also pointed out on other sites how unfair and close minded the skeptics were. If somebody called him delusional, do you think he would take the time to address that symptom by symptom? No. He'd use it as evidence that the skeptics are afraid of him and refuse to even consider the paranormal. He turned negative responses into positive responses by spinning them to his audience. Anita has done none of that.

Anita's guestbook was up for almost a year before the Doctor and Psychic guy signed it. That was a day after she signed his guestbook. Looks to me like she stumbled across his site, and he took the opportunity to get a link back to his site. It's the only one we've seen. Pretty much every other link to her site is from skeptic sites.

If she's a scammer, she's making incredibly bad decisions left and right. If she's a scammer, she's 18 months into it without making a single dime off of it.

If you were a scammer, what would you do? First thing is I would promote myself to my target audience: those who believe in woo. I would link to all sorts of other woo sites and ask for links back. I might approach the skeptics, but only to the point where I could make them attack me (which we've done). I would cherry pick the attacks and post them on my site.

I would make a big deal out of how the IIG can't explain my powers and therefore can't test me despite 18 months of trying to devise a protocol. I wouldn't keep the negotiation open. I would point out that after 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 posts the skeptics at the JREF could not figure out how to test me and instead called me delusional. I would point how how they were wrong about me being from Sweden - not one person took me up on my offer to call me and hear my accent. I would point out how they insisted that I couldn't be taking a double-major even though it's clear on the UNC website that it's possible - what kind of skeptics can't do basic research?

I would make up much better "observations" than what is currently on her site. I would have passed the chemical identification test with flying colors - if they said I was lying, then why did they ask me to take the test in the first place? I would tout my success at the FACT meeting without linking back to a site the rips that reading to shreds - "Look, I even accurately read a skeptic on their home turf, right under the nose of the president of the group! They were too afraid to let anyone else test me."

I see none of that. If she's a scammer, either she's incredibly bad at it or she is the most patient and diabolical I've ever seen.

Kinda like you posted earlier, this is all our "opinions" based on experience. I admit that I have no real experience with anyone who is "clinically" delusional et al but I have dealt with a lot of the holy roller types and their beliefs and a few fruitcakes so I have some experience with those types..

If I were to hazard a guess based on the written word, I would say she is a "believer" in all things woo, wishes she had "the force" but is fully aware she doesnt. Part of her goal is to be counted and regarded as one who has "the power" by the masses.

I again discount delusion because truly "delusional" because in my limited experience, those with delusional beliefs structure their lives around them in all areas and it becomes a part of them. I dont see this with VFF.

>>>Where is the parallel? By that I mean how many scammers have started on skeptic websites to begin their scam?

well, we really dont know where the true "starting point" is but the fact she came here is evidence she wants publicity. She initiated the act and that indicates a premeditated purpose and intent. Now she demonstrates a pattern of deliberate lies and ducking. This is a test for "something"- just dont know what yet.

>>>If she's a scammer, she's making incredibly bad decisions left and right. If she's a scammer, she's 18 months into it without making a single dime off of it.

youth and inexperience but shes "smart enough" to test her strategy before she launches her career.

>>>I see none of that. If she's a scammer, either she's incredibly bad at it or she is the most patient and diabolical I've ever seen

I can see patient and I can give you a loose parallel. Its Roger Patterson and the famous PGF ( bigfoot film). He was a scammer who devoted YEARS to "searching" and wrote books before he got a suit and made what can be argued as a very controversial film. He made some decent money.

Was he delusional or "slick"

desertgal
4th February 2009, 04:56 AM
I again discount delusion because truly "delusional" because in my limited experience, those with delusional beliefs structure their lives around them in all areas and it becomes a part of them.

In fairness, not always. It depends on the nature and the strength of the delusion(s). It's true that the delusion(s) can become a part of them, but many people with delusions can compartmentalize the delusion(s) so that it doesn't affect other areas of their lives. In the same way that a sadistic sociopath (i.e. Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway) can compartmentalize their homicidal urges to the extent that those closest to them are none the wiser.

I actually don't see that with Anita. I think her delusions are beginning to seep into many areas of her 'real' life. For example, she's made a few comments about using her 'ability' in her studies. During a simple visit to a tourist town, she turned what was likely an employee dressed in period clothing into a "ghost". Etc.

If I were to hazard a guess based on the written word, I would say she is a "believer" in all things woo, wishes she had "the force" but is fully aware she doesnt. Part of her goal is to be counted and regarded as one who has "the power" by the masses.

Very true. Course, as noted, that doesn't mean she isn't delusional-or, being delusional, isn't coming to the realization that her "ability" is non existent.

He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so.

Four ailments? We are all under the impression, via Anita, that Wayne listed only ONE thing on his list - past surgery to the diaphragm, which she failed to detect. Interesting that she forgot to mention that it was multiple choice.

He is real and he was at our last meeting and he has not been treated very well so far in the forum.

Well, for that, I am sorry.

This thread has taken a nasty turn. IMO skepticism needs to be a very large tent.

True.

If I have been overly caustic towards Anita, I apologize. Partly due to exasperation, but also partly due to the hope that, if I reiterated what I see as the delusional pattern to her thinking enough, she might wake up and realize that, if twenty people are noting that same pattern, there might be something to it. No such luck.

Kuko 4000
4th February 2009, 05:08 AM
Being a real scientist or having a real degree as a "woo" is VERY good for the business. I am sure Anita knows how to advertise her scientific background if she ever starts one. She is doing it enough already. To me it seems that she is just delusional about her abilities. This is where this forum can help a lot, I hope you guys and gals have the patience to stick with her until a proper claim and a test is agreed.

Belz...
4th February 2009, 05:22 AM
[B]There , fixed it for you ... Personal incredulity doesn't count for much here.

Since when can't a scammer be - soft spoken, not at all pushy, very genuinely nice and interesting ?

Endearing herself to the skeptical community could just be part of the set up; even though it may not be working for her in any way that we can comprehend.

While she is avoiding a legitimate test, she can make claims about how hard she is trying to work out a testing protocol with card carrying skeptics, and cry foul when things don't go her way .

Well, I'd think that most scammers would not waste time trying to convince skeptics. They usually go for those who already believe their abilities are real. Delusional people, however, "know" that their abilities are real so there is no reason to avoid skeptics.

Moochie
4th February 2009, 07:00 AM
Furthering that, a lot of mass murdered have been said to be interesting and nice people.

Yes, I've read that Ted Bundy was a thoroughly nice, personable young man.


M.

desertgal
4th February 2009, 07:06 AM
Yes, I've read that Ted Bundy was a thoroughly nice, personable young man.


M.

No, he just knew how to play one.

Moochie
4th February 2009, 07:11 AM
<snip>

She's back to being sweet since her actual test is no longer imminent. That aside, how do you rank her on her skills as a scammer? I know it's hard to judge since she hasn't actually scammed anybody yet, but you get the idea.


And we know this, how?


M.

Moochie
4th February 2009, 07:51 AM
<snip>

Does all this mean that she may be a future scammer of gullible woos? Absolutely. Or she may just be a delusional gal looking for attention to perpetuate the delusion.

And the other ideas canvassed are, c) a psychological field study of some kind; and d) hoax.

I'm leaning toward the "woo entrepreneur" -- the "Amazing Anita," if you will. :)


M.

Moochie
4th February 2009, 08:22 AM
No, he just knew how to play one.

Yes, that's what I should have made clear. Thanks.


M.

Kuko 4000
4th February 2009, 08:24 AM
Four ailments? We are all under the impression, via Anita, that Wayne listed only ONE thing on his list - past surgery to the diaphragm, which she failed to detect. Interesting that she forgot to mention that it was multiple choice.


Not all of us, can't remember who wrote it, but I'm quite sure I read it from this thread some pages ago.

EDIT: tried to find it, but couldn't, it's very possible I just had a false memory triggered by godofpies recent post. Sorry about that desertgal!

Locknar
4th February 2009, 08:25 AM
"Ms. Iknonen has not, thus far, made a specific testable claim. She asserts that she can detect medical ailments by examining people, but in fact, there is no ailment that she guarantees she will see with 100%, or even high, efficiency. The one test we have performed with her involved her looking at a person and attempting to detect any obvious medical signals. She indicated, with considerable uncertainty, that there might be a problem with the throat/thyroid or something like that, but marked it with a low level of confidence. Eventually, the person told her she was incorrect. He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."


If you respect Dr Carlson as much as you say you do, I think that it is important to follow the scientific method and design a study that will help us help you prove or disprove your paranormal claim. We are more than happy to help you if you are sincere but I don't think it is fair to our group to ask them to participate in something that is guaranteed to produce questionable results at best.

BOLD added by Locknar
The quote from Dr Carlson is spot on - she has yet to make a specific testable claim. That aside, when she tried her ability (and btw, breaking the protocol she had set by talking with the individual she was evaluating) she got a total 100% miss. She missed the scar (she has more then once claimed to be able to "see" scar tissue), she identified a aliment the claimant did not have/confirm (ie. the throat/thyroid mentioned by Dr Carlson), when given a list of 4 ailments to choose from she was unable to do so.

Vff will counter with "I never claimed to have 100% accuracy all the time...I am simply never wrong when i sense something" (to paraphrase). This is obviously not true/correct since she DID claim to sense the throat/thyroid issue (albeit with low confidence), and this is just one of numerous misses she fails to count/consider/acknowledge.

We have folks trying to develop tests for her, offering her help, etc. - all of which she is ignoring. And why shouldn't she - she has no specific testable claim. For that matter, given her attitude and behavior she seems less then sincere thus far.

Thus far, all she has is very vague/nondescript "study" protocol that virtually anyone on the planet (even Sylvia Brown or Uri) could score high on through nothing more then random chance.

At this point I suggest the entire discussion thus far, related to her test/study, is moot and will continue to be so until SHE states a specific, testable claim.

dirtygreek
4th February 2009, 08:30 AM
dirtygreek made a very generalized statement that we could all probably agree with and finds that he's walked into a snakepit.

He can probably handle it. He probably doesn't need me to defend him. I'm not really defending him, I'm defending the idea that it's not necessarily a great policy to attack a new poster immediately, especially when he has more immediate knowledge and access to VfF than any of us doHeh, thanks - just to be clear, I'm a veteran of internet boards, and I've been attacked before. I have read around 20 pages of this thread overall, I'd say. And anyway, so far, the responses to what I said aren't the least bit hurtful to me or anything I wouldn't expect from the internet.

What I was referring to, mainly, was the people who have been downright MEAN to Anita, when she hasn't shown any malice towards them. I can understand their being skeptical of her, maybe poking fun of her, etc, but I don't think that just because you're on a message board it's ok to be mean.

Don't expect it to change, of course - that's the net for ya - but I know for a fact that people who act mean and vile online are usually not that way in person. It's easy to be rude and mean when you don't have to look a person in the eye.

Anyway, all I really have to say is that I don't think Anita is a scammer. Her inability to settle on a testing procedure seems subconscious to me - a fear of learning that she doesn't have this ability. She is intelligent from what I gather and probably knows deep down that any real test would prove to her that she doesn't have it. However, I salute her bravery in coming to a skeptics board and coming in person to a skeptics meeting. If she was trying to scam skeptics, that would be really stupid, and I don't believe for a second she's stupid.

steenkh
4th February 2009, 08:41 AM
Anyway, all I really have to say is that I don't think Anita is a scammer. Her inability to settle on a testing procedure seems subconscious to me - a fear of learning that she doesn't have this ability. She is intelligent from what I gather and probably knows deep down that any real test would prove to her that she doesn't have it.
That is also how I see it.

However, as the pages grow in this thread, and Anita is not showing any improving understanding of her failures, or simply showing a willingness to be tested in reality, her claims and trying to bring them to the test is becoming less and less interesting. I salute those who can still manage to take Anita seriously!
:th:

dirtygreek
4th February 2009, 08:55 AM
dirtygreek - what were your impressions of Anita's friend Chris?
Was it her boyfriend? Was was he like?
He's not here and not really a part of this discussion, but either way my impressions of him were very limited. He said only a few things, mainly making some suggestions as to how the testing could proceed. I can't say whether they were dating - I have no reason to think they were or weren't from the limited time I saw them together.

EHocking
4th February 2009, 09:08 AM
Well, I'd think that most scammers would not waste time trying to convince skeptics. They usually go for those who already believe their abilities are real. Delusional people, however, "know" that their abilities are real so there is no reason to avoid skeptics.It is my opinion that Anita is attempting to use sceptics, sceptical societies and JREF as a way to legitimise her scam.

Excerpts from her "study":

The involvement of skeptics is crucial in order to raise the quality of the outcome of the study.Appeal to authority / legitimisation of her results.
[When person approach who are intereste in volunteering...Scam part. There is absolutely no control over her "salting" the volunteers with people she knows.
"COntrol" by skepticAppeal to authority / legitimisation of her results.
Will be used as a "see I'm better than a SKEPTIC
Skeptic is encourage to attempt any skills of cold reading or guessing to form his/her answers.Appeal to authority / legitimisation of her results.
Will be used as a "see I'm better than a SKEPTIC.

Why not use a doctor skilled in diagnosis?
..or even produce random anwers, so that a a very fough and probably even useless estimate of the type of correlation between the answers of someone who is not a paranormal claimant and the answers of the vol78nteers can be estimated at the end of the study and kind of "subtracted" from the apparent correlatioin with the claimant's answers.Scam part. Fiddle the figures in order to make the results match the claim.
The practical part of the study is considered finished either when the claimant has a reason for it,... or for any other unforeseen reasons.Scam part. When Anita realises that the number of unknown volunteers is more than her stooges, she'll call a halt so as not to ruin her chances of success.
The claimant reserves the right to have plenty of say in who is assigned what position, and the right to decline a person from participating or even attending the study.Scam part. Cherry pick your volunteers and subjects.

Goals:
To try out various test conditions, such as seeing the volunteer from behind...to establish the average time it takes for the claimant to finish viewing a person. Scam part. She already claims that she can visualies a 3D model of the insides of a person, from any angle, with only a glance.

We are being used as dupes in a scam.

Soapy Sam
4th February 2009, 09:26 AM
Whether a person claiming paranormal ability is a knowing fraud , delusional, a joker or an idiot (or any combination thereof) should be, at most, a secondary concern for JREF or the forum members.
The primary question of interest is this:-"Can this person do what he/ she claims to be able to do?"

Is there anyone active in this thread who feels anything in the thread leads them to think the answer is "yes" in this case? If not, I suggest it has run its course.

desertgal
4th February 2009, 09:26 AM
What I was referring to, mainly, was the people who have been downright MEAN to Anita, when she hasn't shown any malice towards them.

In all fairness, I'm, not sure that is accurate. Before this thread degenerated into whatever it is now, three people here, in an effort to show Anita where we were drawing our conclusions about her pattern of delusional thinking, shared highly personal information about our own battles with psychosis, depression, and a schizo disorder. Believe me, when you have battled a mental illness, sharing it with strangers, even in the interest of helping someone, isn't the easiest thing to do.

She then turned our experiences around and began attacking the original three and several other posters as being mentally ill. She did it repeatedly, often without just cause at posters who hadn't written a word about their opinion of her state of mind.

I'd say that was pretty malicious.

Belz...
4th February 2009, 10:03 AM
It is my opinion that Anita is attempting to use sceptics, sceptical societies and JREF as a way to legitimise her scam.

That's a real possibility, of course. But personally I'm inclined to think she's just deluded. Either way, nobody here believes that she has an ability, so she hasn't made any progress...

desertgal
4th February 2009, 10:19 AM
And the other ideas canvassed are, c) a psychological field study of some kind; and d) hoax.

I'm leaning toward the "woo entrepreneur" -- the "Amazing Anita," if you will. :)


M.

But, as I've been trying to point out to Anita, "hoax" and "woo entrepeneur" can be just another delusion.

Look, if I sit here and think that elephants can be pink and they can fly, that's a delusional thought. Harmless in itself, but still delusional.

If I take it further, and convince myself that it is fact, and create false memories to prove that 'fact' to myself, and attempt to sell people that bit of my delusional reality, that's a pattern of delusional thought.

If I take it in another direction, and acknowledge the fact that there are no pink flying elephants, I could still attempt to perpetuate another delusion: that I can convince logical people that there are, with invented anecdotes and the like. A different delusion, but still exhibiting a delusional pattern. Especially if it is accompanied with delusions of believing that I can win the Nobel Prize with such a claim, and become the most heralded woman on Earth.

As I said before, I think a lot of woos are delusional, to more or less degree. Especially if they come here and try to sell their claims-because it is deluded, in itself, to think that skeptics will buy that there are flying pink elephants.

I don't think Anita is pulling a cold blooded scam. She's too irrational and illogical for that. Whether she believes her claim or not, I'm not sure - I believe she did at the beginning, but is starting to see the light - she still appears to be clinging to the delusion that she can sell it here.

Very different from, say, Sylvia Browne-whom, I believe, doesn't think for one second that she is truly psychic, and who purposely targets only the woo audience to sell her claim. She knows skeptics aren't going to buy it - and she doesn't delude herself into thinking they will.

Skeptical Greg
4th February 2009, 10:23 AM
Bottom line:

If Anita really wanted to submit to a legitimate test of her claims, she could have done so long, long ago ..

That's what she claims to have come here for, yet she has failed to submit to any number of simple tests that would verify her abilities if they existed.

So, what is she really here for ?

Since her purpose is clearly to not be tested in any meaningful way, she has some other purpose ..

The only thing we can say without a doubt, is that she is a liar.

Uncayimmy
4th February 2009, 10:32 AM
And we know this, how?
When I say that she hasn't scammed anyone yet, by definition it's "that we know of." If she's done it under the VisionFromFeeling brand that she's setting up to be the next great psychic doctor, there's no evidence of it on the web.

desertgal
4th February 2009, 10:39 AM
Not all of us, can't remember who wrote it, but I'm quite sure I read it from this thread some pages ago.

EDIT: tried to find it, but couldn't, it's very possible I just had a false memory triggered by godofpies recent post. Sorry about that desertgal!

No problem. :)

For the record, Jim said, in his previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4374843&postcount=1624) about the meeting: "I then asked the person that had held the paper what had been written on it ( I personally never saw the paper) and they told me that Wayne had written down that he had a scar on his chest from surgery on his diaphragm but other than that, he was healthy." There's no indication in his post, though, that he was aware that Wayne had written down four things and asked Anita to choose one of them. Considering the locale, and the fact that Jim was talking to other skeptics about other things, he may not have been.

Anita says, on her website (http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/observations.html): "After checking again and again, logically expecting there to be a list of interesting and significant ailments, since, after all, he was so eager to volunteer then surely he would "have something" for me to find, and after all he had made a list!...He did write one information on his paper, which was a severed diaphragm from an accident. Knowing what was there to find, I still couldn't find it and I said so."

Anita, this is a good example of why so many of us have pointed out to you that your "anecdotes" and your alleged apparent accuracy should not be used as evidence, by you, to move forward with testing. ALL human memory is flawed - apparently, in this case, in favor of your paranormal ability. Your 'accuracy' is completely subjective.

Moochie
4th February 2009, 11:07 AM
<snip>

Anyway, all I really have to say is that I don't think Anita is a scammer. Her inability to settle on a testing procedure seems subconscious to me - a fear of learning that she doesn't have this ability. She is intelligent from what I gather and probably knows deep down that any real test would prove to her that she doesn't have it. However, I salute her bravery in coming to a skeptics board and coming in person to a skeptics meeting. If she was trying to scam skeptics, that would be really stupid, and I don't believe for a second she's stupid.

Somehow, these two notions don't jibe, IMO.


M.

Moochie
4th February 2009, 11:26 AM
When I say that she hasn't scammed anyone yet, by definition it's "that we know of." If she's done it under the VisionFromFeeling brand that she's setting up to be the next great psychic doctor, there's no evidence of it on the web.


As I've said before, I do not believe a single thing this poster has said. I do, however, suspect that someone's perpetrating a giant leg-pull. I'm not sure if it's a humorous leg-pull or not.


M.

Uncayimmy
4th February 2009, 11:28 AM
Kinda like you posted earlier, this is all our "opinions" based on experience.
Well, that's your opinion. :D Seriously, though, I'm going to argue and challenge you on this, but it's just my opinion. I'm genuinely interested in learning from your experience.

well, we really dont know where the true "starting point" is but the fact she came here is evidence she wants publicity. She initiated the act and that indicates a premeditated purpose and intent. Now she demonstrates a pattern of deliberate lies and ducking. This is a test for "something"- just dont know what yet.
The problem I have with the publicity theory is that this is negative publicity that is not even reaching her target audience. However, I can see a science student with a delusional belief looking for reinforcement fro skeptics.

youth and inexperience but shes "smart enough" to test her strategy before she launches her career.
Specifically, what do you mean by strategy?

I can see patient and I can give you a loose parallel. Its Roger Patterson and the famous PGF ( bigfoot film). He was a scammer who devoted YEARS to "searching" and wrote books before he got a suit and made what can be argued as a very controversial film. He made some decent money.

Was he delusional or "slick"
I don't even think he was slick. He also produced a movie about Bigfoot narrated with "circus-like prose" a full year before the famous PGF. It was a for-profit movie marketed to Bigfoot believers. I don't like this comparison because it contains two key elements that Anita has not demonstrated: profit making and appeal to the target audience. It also lacks the element of appealing to the skeptical while ignoring the gullible.

Uncayimmy
4th February 2009, 11:41 AM
Whether a person claiming paranormal ability is a knowing fraud , delusional, a joker or an idiot (or any combination thereof) should be, at most, a secondary concern for JREF or the forum members.
The primary question of interest is this:-"Can this person do what he/ she claims to be able to do?"
The answer to that has been a resounding "no" since the beginning. The E in JREF stands for educational. The discussion of her motivations is educational for all of us. Frauds, deluded persons, jokers, and idiots (and combinations thereof) require different techniques not only in detection but in how they are dealt with.

And just to clarify once again, Anita does not have a specific claim. That's something else that needs to be taught or exposed or whatever based on what you think is behind her continued insistence.

Is there anyone active in this thread who feels anything in the thread leads them to think the answer is "yes" in this case? If not, I suggest it has run its course.
Yes. Her name is Anita. If she's a fraud, she should be exposed. If she's deluded, she should get help. If she's an idiot, she should be taught. If she's a joker, she should be ignored.

dirtygreek
4th February 2009, 12:57 PM
Somehow, these two notions don't jibe, IMO.

You don't think intelligent people can be fooled by subconscious thoughts? Have you MET any human beings? Perhaps we're referring to a different species.

Ashles
4th February 2009, 04:03 PM
Okay Unca, from the point of view of the Hit:Miss falsification analysis I agree that any ailment suffered more one month prior to testing should also be ignored. Also in any instance where the volunteer has not specified a time frame the answer should be ignored.

Anita has not, as far as I am aware, stated she can tell an entire life's worth of medical history (although maybe she has somewhere) and all of her claimed strongest ailities and experiences describe current health issues, or permanent remnants of previous activities (scars, vasectomies etc.)

So my proposed falsification scenario is:

Only the answers where the ailment is described 'Now', 'Past Week' or 'Month' are eligible for analysis for the purposes of the Falsification Analysis.
All possible responses by Volunteer and Anita are listed below.
The purple text describes Anita's personal view of acuracy. This is only of relevance to Anita herself.
The Red/Green text describes how we will treat the answers for the purposes of falsification analysis.
Volunteer: N Anita: N
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: N Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: N Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: N Anita: 3
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: N Anita: 4
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: N Anita: 5
Analysis: 0% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: 1 Anita: N
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 1
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 2
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 3
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 4
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: 1 Anita: 5
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: MISS

Volunteer: 2 Anita: N
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 1
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 2
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 3
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 4
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 2 Anita: 5
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 3 Anita: N
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 1
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 2
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 3
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 4
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 3 Anita: 5
Analysis: 60% H- Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 4 Anita: N
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 1
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 2
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 3
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 4
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 4 Anita: 5
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 5 Anita: N
Analysis: 0% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 1
Analysis: 20% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 2
Analysis: 40% H - Falsification Analysis: ? (ignore)

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 3
Analysis: 60% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 4
Analysis: 80% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Volunteer: 5 Anita: 5
Analysis: 100% H - Falsification Analysis: HIT

Assumptions:
No conclusions (except for the Falsification Scenario below) are to be drawn from this Study by either Anita or Skeptics. This study is entirely for Anita to learn more about the limitations of the ability for her own purposes and so that if a proper test is ever done Anita will finally be able to detail what the ability actually specifically claims, to within what tolerances and under what conditions, and pass/fail details provided.
Falsification Scenario - If the ratio of Hits:Misses is 1:5 or worse this Study will be declared to have falsified the likelihood of any ability (whatever method is claimed) existing. It can be concluded there is no ability present so no further investigation is required.


Any major objections to any of this?

tsig
4th February 2009, 05:06 PM
Being a real scientist or having a real degree as a "woo" is VERY good for the business. I am sure Anita knows how to advertise her scientific background if she ever starts one. She is doing it enough already. To me it seems that she is just delusional about her abilities. This is where this forum can help a lot, I hope you guys and gals have the patience to stick with her until a proper claim and a test is agreed.

There will be heating bills in hell before you see a test.

"To dream the impossible dream"

Ashles
4th February 2009, 05:20 PM
If we can get Anita to actually perform this study/test with the skeptics, we're only going to get one shot. Based on its current design, I don't see how see how my toddler could do worse than 50% accuracy. If that happens, we've only given her delusions (or scam) legitimacy.
Anita has specifically written:
This is not a test. It can under no circumstances provide evidence towards an ESP ability. I may provide evidence that indicates no ESP ability.
It's a test that can only yield an actual result that is negative, by agreement on both sides.

Of course it is possible that she might claim a test in which she doesn't outright fail (the very generous falsification position) to be in some way an endorsement of her ability. But then, if so inclined, she could probably choose to do that from what has already happened anyway.
I don't see how it would help her in any way other than provide very specific issues for us to rebuke. And it would lessen her credibility in the long run.
At this stage I think we all know what might or might not happen and should proceed on the assumption that she won't claim any success from the study.

Also, if she proceeds with the study (unless she solely provides answers of N, 1 and 2 which would generate its own problems for her) she runs the risk of providing a clear incorrect answer which would ruin her 'never been incorrect' claim.

By taking the study Anita is for the first time putting the ability to at least some form of agreed judging, even if the judging is, by necessity of how she has designed the test, very generously skewed towards 'No new conclusions' (as opposed to outright falsification).

Agreeing that a percentage that a doctor couldn't possibly achieve if he was trying to get everything wrong is not productive. Of course she will agree to that.

If that happens, she'll have apparent accuracy and the credibility of the skeptics who were unable to falsify her claim of ESP.
Would that really be any different to where her claim currently is?

Anyone who could read through all the information available regarding this claim (even after a potentially inconclusive 'study') and come to the conclusion that she has 'apparent accuracy', or has 'beaten' the skeptics or demonstrated ability, or in any way performed at a level that suggested the skeptics considered the paranormal ability to still be a possibility... anyone who still believed any of that would probably believe that even after a completely failed test.
There's not much we could really do to convince such a person.

With the next stage being what?
Proper testing with a specific claim with agreed parameters, ailments, success/fail levels and controlled environment/volunteers.
And yes I know how unlikely that is to happen.

So, you're saying that getting Anita to agree to a falsification scenario that is nearly impossible to attain is a step in the right direction?
In my opinion, yes.

And if she does the study, then what?
I don't know. Be fun to find out though. :)

(I must add that I am every bit as much against Anita entering the 'Paranormal Economy' as anyone else here. I am awaiting further info before I draw any conclusions about that.)

Better a stalemate than a surrender.
I don't know who is surrendering.
If the study is going to go ahead, it's going to go ahead.
All we have done is add to it a specific set of agreed measurements that would be considered falsification.
There is already agreement that there is NO set of results that would or could be considered a success for Anita or any indication that there is any ability worthy of further investigation.
If Anita later claimed there was, it would be colossally dishonest and we could easily link back to the accepted agreements ad also her own study documents.
It wouldn't help her in any way.

Right. Because she already believes she has this ability. Nobody else does. So when she does this study, she still believes it and we don't. Only now she can say that the skeptics failed to falsify her claim.
Again I take the position I have above.
Such a stance would only harm her credibility.
I don't know who such a claim would be aimed at convincing. Currently she seems to be aiming her attempts to convince primarily at us skeptics.

Whether she's delusional or a scammer, I cannot see how this is a good thing.
I cannot see how it will have any impact positively for her claim.
If she is going to do the study she is going to do it.
What do you propose? A stricter falsification scenario which she might simply refuse to accept? How does that do anything other than remove any potential for falsification?
The study is already being run in conjunction with a skeptics organisation so she can make the claims you are concerned about about anyway if she so chose.

The only difference I can see with the Falsification Scenario being accepted is that there will actually be one in the study (albeit one I agree is not particularly hard to pass).

First off, the form is not clear on how many time frames can be circled. It must be made clear that only the most recent can be circled and that the Extent relates to that time frame. Right now Florida voters would circle more than one Extent and time frame.
I agree - As detailed above we should only count 'Now', 'Past Week', and 'Month' for the purposes of Falsification.
I also propose that if the volunteer leaves the time frame blank it it discounted for purposes of falsification.

Second, define Extent. This is an example:
0 = No pain
1 = Mild pain
2 = Discomforting
3 = Distressing
4 = Intense
5 = Excruciating
(As the form stands it has 'N' as opposed to '0')
It would probably make sense to have some such scale on the form for reference, but I don't know if it would alter the results significantly.

Third, Anita has repeatedly emphasized the need for the pain or ailment to be current. My preference is to use only Now. However, I'm okay with Month. With this you will get a much smaller number of number of answers. Using your scale with a time frame of one month my answers drop from 37 down to 5.
Agreed.

Fourth, lets ask people her to complete the form but only report the number of eligible answers rather than the details. We can also ask family members to help out. This will at least give us a some baseline from which to work. We can then ask someone like Jeff Corey, "If we assume that on average people check X out of Y answers, then with a reasonable confidence how many matches would we expect from someone making totally random guesses?"

Jeff, of course, will point out all the flaws, but hopefully say, "Despite all these problems, this is what you should expect." We can then negotiate falsifiable from there.
If Jeff did describe a figure (which I am not sure he would as this study is really so open to interpretation and subjective scoring on both sides that it is of very little use for any detailed statistical analysis) I have no doubt it would be much more stringent than my proposal of 1:5 Hits:Misses.

But, precisely because the study is so resistent to detailed analysis I have deliberately made the falsification position so generous that there is no real reason for Anita to reject it.

I'd be interested to see if Jeff felt the 1:5 ratio is reasonable (if acceptedly very generous in Anita's favour) in light of the rest of the set up.

GeeMack
4th February 2009, 06:16 PM
Of course it is possible that she might claim a test in which she doesn't outright fail (the very generous falsification position) to be in some way an endorsement of her ability.


Like her refusal to acknowledge her dismal failure in her encounter with Wayne and her claim that there was no inaccuracy whatsoever? Yeah, it's possible that she might believe her lack of complete failure is tantamount to supporting the idea that she can do wondrous and magical things. It's possible that someone who hasn't been paying attention to this thread might italicize "possible" and "might".

There will be heating bills in hell before you see a test.


Yes. Actually devising a test or study that doesn't allow her to maintain full control over the interpretation of the results will prove near impossible. That would bring Anita too close to the end of her game. And she's having a mighty fine time playing it.

Besides, submitting herself to that kind of legitimate scrutiny would require the courage to accept the possibility that she's wrong. She doesn't have that kind of courage. She's already turned and run a couple times when people actually started expecting her to come up with the goods. Then a while later she sashays back in with, "Who, little ol' me?" Manipulative? You bet. Oddly enough, some people think she still merits a gentler hand than would be given a self professed carnie who has already treated everyone in the room with disdain and contempt. Yep. Side show freak wannabe.

Jeff Corey
4th February 2009, 06:20 PM
Reply to Ashley, post 2242
No. The problem is the whole schtick, starting with, "What's the question?"

Like I tell my students, "Students, you have to start with a falsifiable question, like 'Can you tell the difference between ***** and Shinola?'"

Uncayimmy
4th February 2009, 08:28 PM
It's a test that can only yield an actual result that is negative, by agreement on both sides.

I started replying point by point, but there was just too much repetition. Here's the thing: There is a huge difference between these two statements.

1) The skeptics could not devise a satisfactory protocol to test my abilities.
2) The skeptics designed a protocol to prove I had no abilities. I took the test, and the brilliant skeptic, Ashles, and I concluded that my abilities could not be falsified.

I want no part of #2.

Not one of us needs Anita to do any survey, study or test. She needs it, not us. I'd like to see her do a bunch of readings, but I'm not going to pretend that the results have meanings they clearly do not.

I also don't like the message that it sends, which is that the rigors of critical thinking should bow to the whims of delusional/fraudulent/naive believers in the repeatedly unproven.

Her claim is 100% Apparent Accuracy™ with no false positives out of 100 people. We started out saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now you're saying that falsifying extraordinary claims requires sucking at something really, really bad. Oh, and we're not even gonna do the math to even get a rough idea if our definition of "really, really bad" even has any basis in reality. Ironic, huh?

You and Anita can agree on whatever you want. You gotta get the FACT skeptics on board if you expect them to help, and Godofpie already indicated that his group doesn't want to be involved in something that is useless. Remember, once she reads them, they cannot be read again.

As for the scale, she needs to drop it. If she wants to record it for her own information, then so be it. When I analyze it, I'll say No means No and any number in extent means Yes. Period. The stuff you propose is, quite frankly, silly.

There are a few items I will not count at all (smoking and exercise). Others are too vague to be useful (right arm could mean triceps, biceps, forearm, elbow, and possibly deltoids depending on who you talk to).

She needs the test. She needs the cooperation of FACT. And yet she is dictating the terms? Meh.

Jeff Corey
4th February 2009, 09:07 PM
I agree. This "study" notion was an excuse to not ever get down to a real test of the original claim, which was that she could guess various conditions at a high level of accuracy. Better than chance at p < .01 would have been interesting enough to warrant a more extensive controlled experiment.

You people might have noticed that I have never speculated as to Anita's motivations, potential for delusionary ideation or pathological lying. That's because I just can't tell. Wiithout seeing her act in person, I have not one clue. Except, I bet someone so bad at science doesn't have a 4.0 in a double science major at a respected university.
Unless...nevermind.

Uncayimmy
4th February 2009, 10:53 PM
Jeff - I'm just throwing this out there and would like to hear your opinion. I haven't thought it through yet.

Assuming there are 15 skeptics at the FACT meeting, what do you think of the idea of having people fill out her form (minus age/gender) in advance of the meeting. Her mission, should she choose to accept it, would be to match up the form to the individual.

Miss_Kitt
4th February 2009, 11:17 PM
UncaYimmy --

She'll never do that. She doesn't want to "waste" her precious skeptic pool with a prelimanary study--especially one before she has had more time to observe and note (consciously or not) any behavioral clues on illnesses in the group.

I'm disappoint, albeit not surprised, that Anita didn't respond to my pointing out that her expectation that "everyone" can taste food by looking at it, have images of past events appear visibly in their mind due to hearing a song, etc. means that she has unusually strong mental response to memory-trigger stimuli.

My earliest guess on Anita's ability (probably 30 pages ago) was that her 'hometown' successes and possiblity co-worker events were due to her having heard, seen, or overheard the medical information, and then forgotten that she had done so. When the person then triggers the strong, visual response that apparently is not uncommon for her, she perceives this as "seeing" something real in the world.

I still don't know if she's fooling herself, not all screwed down tight, or fudging about how much she knows she knows. But I'm quite, quite certain that she'll refuse to do a direct test that is not subject to wiggle-room and interpretation. Whether she still thinks it is valid or not, that "100% accuracy on all attempts to verify" is very important to her, and she's not going to risk it.

@ Kuko4000 -- Go back to, say, page 30 or so and check out the many hundreds of posts of people patiently and helpfully trying to get a description, a test design, a clarification. It's certainly true that recently people have been snippy, but remember, many of them are very tired of the Same Old Song and Dance, and the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with. That might give you a broader perspective on why a lot of patience is no longer on offer.

Regards, Miss Kitt

Uncayimmy
5th February 2009, 12:02 AM
UncaYimmy --

She'll never do that. She doesn't want to "waste" her precious skeptic pool with a prelimanary study--especially one before she has had more time to observe and note (consciously or not) any behavioral clues on illnesses in the group.
She did indicate that she wanted to do a study with the skeptics, but I'm not going to bet against you. :D FACT is aware of the issue of the more she sees of them, the less qualified they are as test subjects.

As long as test requests are reasonable, I'm okay with making the offers without regard to whether she will accept. If she's delusional, then she'll have to continue to spin things. I don't want to give her a safe haven in which to hide. If she's a fraud, then the day after "We Accept PayPal" goes on her site, my counter website goes on-line.

I'm disappoint, albeit not surprised, that Anita didn't respond to my pointing out that her expectation that "everyone" can taste food by looking at it, have images of past events appear visibly in their mind due to hearing a song, etc. means that she has unusually strong mental response to memory-trigger stimuli.
In one of our Facebook chats I discussed this very same thing before it even came up here. Never once in my life have I met a person and got some "perception" or "image" about their health that I couldn't block. I told her, like you did, that such vivid, strong, lasting, and malleable imagery is not considered typical.

My earliest guess on Anita's ability (probably 30 pages ago) was that her 'hometown' successes and possiblity co-worker events were due to her having heard, seen, or overheard the medical information, and then forgotten that she had done so. When the person then triggers the strong, visual response that apparently is not uncommon for her, she perceives this as "seeing" something real in the world.
That's pretty much my take on it. That's why in our Facebook chats I "read" a number of things about her before I saw her picture. I was reasonably accurate about some specific things regarding her family and friends. When I finally saw some photos, I "read" a number of other things and was pretty accurate. I got some great reactions.

She acknowledges that this can be done, but she doesn't accept this as the likely explanation. That's not surprising considering the imagery that is triggered in her mind.

@ Kuko4000 -- Go back to, say, page 30 or so and check out the many hundreds of posts of people patiently and helpfully trying to get a description, a test design, a clarification. It's certainly true that recently people have been snippy, but remember, many of them are very tired of the Same Old Song and Dance, and the alternating "My beloved skeptics" / "You guys are hateful, you're jealous of me, you're delusional" treatment from someone they've put a lot of time into honestly trying to work with. That might give you a broader perspective on why a lot of patience is no longer on offer.
That's a good point. I'm sure many of us, myself included, have been snippier than we would prefer. Even the most patient of us gets frustrated after a while.

Akhenaten
5th February 2009, 01:47 AM
<snippy>

You people might have noticed that I have never speculated as to Anita's motivations, potential for delusionary ideation or pathological lying. That's because I just can't tell. Wiithout seeing her act in person, I have not one clue. Except, I bet someone so bad at science doesn't have a 4.0 in a double science major at a respected university.
Unless...nevermind.


I've seen so much ... attempted in this very thread that I have no doubt it's the only real ability we're dealing with here.