Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[alleracsum]

How would that pre-testing be carried out? Also, where and when in relation to the site and date of the actual testing?

How many volunteers would be needed to supply enough people to be "approved" by Anita?

I'm trying to work with you, Ynot. I repeat:

How would that pre-testing be carried out? Also, where and when in relation to the site and date of the actual testing?

How many volunteers would be needed to supply enough people to be "approved" by Anita?

 

[ynot]

Since identifying people with missing kidneys is not a claim Anita has ever made, why are you wishing a brand new claim on her?

If I claimed I could levitate, would you then suggest that I take a dowsing test instead?

Norm

To say that a person is missing a kidney from the right side is absolutely saying that the person is missing a kidney. If you don’t agree please explain exactly why.

 

[Uncayimmy]

She only fails if she’s wrong. Non-paranormal methods she may use to detect a missing kidneys would only help her to be right not wrong.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Stopping a test that requires 100% success after a failure isn’t an advantage, it’s common sense.

Another assertion with no reasoning behind it.

The problem that she may be able to identify a missing kidneys by non-paranormal means is common to all tests.

Yes. Exactly.

You seem to be saying that because there is a possibility she can cheat then a “correct” answer can never be accepted as an actual correct answer.

Where in the world did you get that idea? I never said any such thing. Seriously, man, is English your native language?

In other words she can never claim to win. So what’s the point of running any test unless your only intention is to prove her wrong?

1) She can claim whatever she wants.

2) The results are self-evident, so #1 doesn't matter.

3) If a claimant wins the challenge, it has proven nothing to the world of science. The most likely reason for success is cheating, probably by collusion. Otherwise, why accept the challenge in the first place?

4) Failure indicates that the ability described did not function as claimed.

Let me try to explain the problem with stopping again because you're just not getting it. By itself and in a vacuum, stopping confers no advantage to the claimant. However, it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Stopping at the first wrong answer by definition requires affirming all of the correct answers up to that point. This is providing feedback to the claimant, who, as you admit above, may be using some ordinary means of making educated guesses rather than relying on the fantasy they call a paranormal claim. Feedback provides an advantage to the claimant.

That aside, there's another very important reason not to stop testing. Suppose on the very first trial the claimant gets it wrong. You stop the test. Later, upon reviewing the tape, the claimant finds that you violated protocol. This automatically means a retest.

Suppose you proceed with all 12 trials (or however many) and the claimant misses the first one and the last one. The same violation is found in the first trial but not the last. Since the claimant still had one miss, there are no grounds for a retest because the single mistake did not affect the outcome.

If you can't understand the feedback issue, surely you can understand this very simply concept.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The protocol of my alternative test suggestion has nothing to do with the IIG protocol other than being an alterative protocol. Make sense now?

No, but I really don't care.

You want to know “what they did wrong” but you don’t like me saying what I think they did wrong and offering an alternative. Then you say you want to know “what other things they could or could not have done” but when I offer such other things you insult me. This is how you conduct a study?

It's not a matter of "liking" anything. I am taking your scatterbrained ideas as they come, pointing out the flaws, and concluding that what the IIG did was the better choice. If you come up ideas that I think work better, I'll say so. That's exactly how to conduct a study.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I’ve said many times that I would prefer her to identify people not kidneys. I would not run an actual test for her that required her to identify kidneys. The test I’m suggesting is purely hypothetical.

We know you prefer her to identify people. That's not her claim, and it's easier to do than what she claimed.

And, of course, we know the test is hypothetical. Why did you feel the need to point that out?

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you are saying you can’t tell her she’s right or wrong after any answer because it confirms her method of cheating is working then you must be running a very tenuous test indeed. If there is a way she can successfully cheat three successive times then the test needs a serious redesign. Seems more like paranoia to me.

It is not cheating for her to use ordinary means of detection because there is no way to prove that she's using the powers she claims to have. How do we know she's not going to use ESP to read the minds of the subjects? Maybe she's gonna send out a mind-control command that says, "If you only have one kidney, take a deep breath right now." Maybe she can read the mind of the person who knows who the target is.

That's why the protocol is written like it is, meaning she is not required to use her powers. You set up a test where to the best of your abilities you have eliminated ordinary means, but you have to be humble enough to admit that you might have missed something or one of your subjects may give himself away.

There is no advantage to stopping the test early except that it might save a few minutes during the test. If you look at everything involved in setting up these tests, the actual test time is probably one of the smallest time components. I've already given you two very good reasons for not stopping. You have given none in favor of stopping.

In the test I’m suggesting she would have to successfully cheat 11 successive times in the preliminary test and 20 times in the final. That the IIG test only required her to do three tests is one of the reasons I think my test suggestion is better.

You and Anita are like peas in a pod. Don't think that I or anyone else has forgotten all of the problems that more than offset this advantage you perceive. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[Furcifer]

What about 3 rounds, 10 people each round, 4.5 minutes per person? One after another. I think that follows the basic protocol. I don't remember reading anything about having them all on stage at the same time.

I know it was mentioned there were time constraints, but 45 minutes a round isn't that long. Especially for the subjects, they've only got to stay still for 4.5 minutes.

Yes I'm stuck on 10, but I like those odds.

 

[fromdownunder]

To say that a person is missing a kidney from the right side is absolutely saying that the person is missing a kidney. If you don’t agree please explain exactly why.

It is right, but it is not what Anita claimed to be able to do, and it distorts what I said to the extent that the above is just plain wrong, and misstates my point rather badly. Each subject theoretically contained two kidneys. Anita claims to see the kidneys themselves - the people are just the containers.

If, as per Anita's claim, she sees the kidneys themselves, and can detect when one is missing, she is looking at a body part, and not at a person. Her claim is NOT that she sees a person missing a body part. Her claim is that she is looking inside a body, and see that a body part is missing specifically in the left or right container. If she gets the body right, but the container wrong she has, as by her own admission, failed, as she has not seen a kidney missing at all.


Norm

 

[Uncayimmy]

What about 3 rounds, 10 people each round, 4.5 minutes per person? One after another. I think that follows the basic protocol. I don't remember reading anything about having them all on stage at the same time.

Is it still one person missing a kidney and having her select the person and the correct kidney?

When does she give her answers?

What advantage does it give you over what was done?

I think you are underestimating the time involved because you are not looking at the transition times. The claimant cannot be allowed to see the person person entering or exiting, so figure at least another two minutes to handle that exchange and confirming that the subject, claimant, proctor, and timekeeper are ready to go. It will probably speed up as everyone falls into a groove, and I may be overestimating the time allotted.

Also, I wouldn't want do this type of test without a signed confirmation of her guess for each person because I don't want to get through all 10 and have there be a dispute about whether she said #5 was the target or not (assuming a single target). One big advantage of the IIG setup was this process was only done once per trial.

I know you like the 10 person number, but even with just six people it could easily run 45 minutes to an hour for a trial. You'd have to get the claimant to agree to spending that much time without a break or add more breaks. And, of course, you have to get all of the subjects to agree to stick around for even longer.

Finally, you'd have to get the claimant to agree to it. My educated guess with this claimant is that she's going to say, "Some subjects I can read quickly while others take a long time. I want an average of 4.5 minutes that I can distribute however I want." Irrational? Yeh, but so is Vibrational Algebra.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If, as per Anita's claim, she sees the kidneys themselves, and can detect when one is missing, she is looking at a body part, and not at a person. Her claim is NOT that she sees a person missing a body part. Her claim is that she is looking insode a body, and seeing that a body part is missing in one of the two containers. If she cannot specify which container, she is seeing nothing whatsoever.

Bolding added. I think Norm hits the nail on the head with that last statement. I'm all for testing something less than the claim if a "full" test is not practical, such as the whole shooting a fly off a sandwich at 1,000 yards while drunk analogy.

In this case it was not the least bit impractical to require her specify the container that is missing a kidney. Note: I almost said "specify the location of the missing kidney" but quickly realized that the "missing" kidney might be in the subject's second cousin on his mother's side.

Not only is it not impractical, but it is more practical to test for it. If you have six subjects with one missing a kidney, there's a 1/6 chance of getting the right person and a 1/12 chance of getting the right location. If you've got the people, the blinding, and everything else, why would you not not ask for the specific location? I am completely stumped.

 

[ynot]

Let me try to explain the problem with stopping again because you're just not getting it.

You may be right. Or it may be yourself that isn’t getting it. (I know that’s very hard for you to imagine)

By itself and in a vacuum, stopping confers no advantage to the claimant. However, it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Agreed.

Stopping at the first wrong answer by definition requires affirming all of the correct answers up to that point. This is providing feedback to the claimant, who, as you admit above, may be using some ordinary means of making educated guesses rather than relying on the fantasy they call a paranormal claim. Feedback provides an advantage to the claimant.

Yes. And it could give confirmation that a cheating method is working. Or a not wrong answer could have been just a lucky guess and using the same cheating method again wouldn’t work for an unlucky guess. Not much of an advantage if any. The cheating method could also be used throughout the test however even if answers weren’t identified as being not wrong. Do you think she would have multiple 100% effective cheating methods to choose from (let alone one)? If the test is so poorly designed that it allows the same cheating method to be used repeatedly then the test need a serious redesign. If a test is going to be used there has to be some trustable robustness in it’s design.

That aside, there's another very important reason not to stop testing. Suppose on the very first trial the claimant gets it wrong. You stop the test. Later, upon reviewing the tape, the claimant finds that you violated protocol. This automatically means a retest.

So what. This could happen in any test. At least in this test you wouldn’t have wasted much time.

Suppose you proceed with all 12 trials (or however many) and the claimant misses the first one and the last one. The same violation is found in the first trial but not the last. Since the claimant still had one miss, there are no grounds for a retest because the single mistake did not affect the outcome.

If she misses the first one then that IS the last one There simply can’t be a first one that’s different from the last one unless all test are successfully completed (are you getting that?).

It is one test (“does this person have a missing kidney?”) repeated until a wrong answer is given or the predetermined number of successful test are completed.

 

[ynot]

Ooops

 

[ynot]

It is right, but it is not what Anita claimed to be able to do, and it distorts what I said to the extent that the above is just plain wrong, and misstates my point rather badly. Each subject theoretically contained two kidneys. Anita claims to see the kidneys themselves - the people are just the containers.

If, as per Anita's claim, she sees the kidneys themselves, and can detect when one is missing, she is looking at a body part, and not at a person. Her claim is NOT that she sees a person missing a body part. Her claim is that she is looking inside a body, and see that a body part is missing specifically in the left or right container. If she gets the body right, but the container wrong she has, as by her own admission, failed, as she has not seen a kidney missing at all.

Norm

If she sees a person's body part she sees part of the body of a person. It's reasonable to assume that the rest of the body is there as well. Let me change the test to “Can you see a body part of a person? Doesn’t have to be a kidney.” Is that better?

 

[Furcifer]

Is it still one person missing a kidney and having her select the person and the correct kidney?

Never considered that case. Was thinking more along the lines of a random sampling of 10. It could work out all the available 1 kidney people end up in a single round.

When does she give her answers?

Submits the paper after evaluating each person. All are final, no changes allowed.

What advantage does it give you over what was done?

Increases randomness. People inherently look for patterns, but they also create them. It significantly decreases her probability of succes per round. Less fidgeting as well.

I think you are underestimating the time involved because you are not looking at the transition times. The claimant cannot be allowed to see the person person entering or exiting, so figure at least another two minutes to handle that exchange and confirming that the subject, claimant, proctor, and timekeeper are ready to go. It will probably speed up as everyone falls into a groove, and I may be overestimating the time allotted.

Staging. Have people behind a wall or screen of whatever, so that you simply draw the curtain when she's ready. It's fairly quiet, they walk out, sit down and ready to go.

Also, I wouldn't want do this type of test without a signed confirmation of her guess for each person because I don't want to get through all 10 and have there be a dispute about whether she said #5 was the target or not (assuming a single target). One big advantage of the IIG setup was this process was only done once per trial.

True, but I think a single submission per person, all final (it's not like they're going to grow a kidney or take one out, so final is final) eliminates any disputes.

I know you like the 10 person number, but even with just six people it could easily run 45 minutes to an hour for a trial. You'd have to get the claimant to agree to spending that much time without a break or add more breaks. And, of course, you have to get all of the subjects to agree to stick around for even longer.

I'd say it could be done in about 4 hours. I've had 2 exams in one day, no excuses.

Finally, you'd have to get the claimant to agree to it. My educated guess with this claimant is that she's going to say, "Some subjects I can read quickly while others take a long time. I want an average of 4.5 minutes that I can distribute however I want." Irrational? Yeh, but so is Vibrational Algebra.

Well there's the catch. You can't make her agree, but I think this is realistic. After round 1 you ultrasound and get results. If she flunks out, she flunks out. If she wishes to continue for research purposes I suppose you entertain her.

Oh and it's more like complex number theory

 

[fromdownunder]

If she sees a person's body part she sees part of the body of a person. It's reasonable to assume that the rest of the body is there as well. Let me change the test to “Can you see a body part of a person? Doesn’t have to be a kidney.” Is that better?

For you maybe, but this is a question that needs to be put to Anita, as it was her claim that she could see kidneys, and has over a two year period completely refused to test on any other body part. Honestly I do not care.

A hypothetical is fine, but as many have said, if nobody agrees to test it, especially the person who wants to demonstrate her "powers" all you are doing is wasting time. As you would (or should) be aware, from other threads, Anita will not agree to anything much at all. So, why pursue something that she will not agree to?

Norm

 

[ynot]

For you maybe, but this is a question that needs to be put to Anita, as it was her claim that she could see kidneys, and has over a two year period completely refused to test on any other body part. Honestly I do not care.

A hypothetical is fine, but as many have said, if nobody agrees to test it, especially the person who wants to demonstrate her "powers" all you are doing is wasting time. As you would (or should) be aware, from other threads, Anita will not agree to anything much at all. So, why pursue something that she will not agree to?

Norm

Sorry I got a bit sidetracked there as itwhat I said is more related to the “Is there a person there or not” test.

 

[ynot]

For you maybe, but this is a question that needs to be put to Anita, as it was her claim that she could see kidneys, and has over a two year period completely refused to test on any other body part. Honestly I do not care.

A hypothetical is fine, but as many have said, if nobody agrees to test it, especially the person who wants to demonstrate her "powers" all you are doing is wasting time. As you would (or should) be aware, from other threads, Anita will not agree to anything much at all. So, why pursue something that she will not agree to?

Norm

Thought we were discussing the protocols of testing not whether we should make a test to suit the demands of anyone. Why is a purely intellectual exercise wasting time? I'm trying to offer suggestions toward any future testing done by anyone (that will get a laugh from UY).

Even if she fully agreed to my suggested test I wouldn’t test her (too far away for one thing). Might test you though as I’m about to visit the Gold Coast for month. Why did I assume "downunder" is Oz and not NZ?

 

[ynot]

Have just added something to a post further down the page so thought I would repeat it here so it won’t be missed.

Additional to post 191 - Any not wrong answer can also be the result of a luck guess so she wouldn’t know that it was the result of effective non-paranormal means. If she tried the same method again she would fail with an unlucky guess. Identifying not wrong answers doesn‘t offer much if any advantage.

 

[fromdownunder]

Even if she fully agreed to my suggested test I wouldn’t test her (too far away for one thing). Might test you though as I’m about to visit the Gold Coast for month. Why did I assume "downunder" is Oz and not NZ?

Well, maybe because I have said at least a few hundred times in threads that I am from Australia, and at least one of these references subconciously stuck in your mind.

And perhaps because "I come from the land down under" is more of an Australian term that a New Zealand term.

In any event I live too many miles away from the Gold Coast (two hours by plane) and I do not claim any paranormal abilities, so I have no idea as to what you want to "test me" for. Australia is rather large, or have you not noticed?

Norm

 

[ynot]

Well, maybe because I have said at least a few hundred times in threads that I am from Australia, and at least one of these references subconciously stuck in your mind.

And perhaps because "I come from the land down under" is more of an Australian term that a New Zealand term.

In any event I live too many miles away from the Gold Coast (two hours by plane) and I do not claim any paranormal abilities, so I have no idea as to what you want to "test me" for. Australia is rather large, or have you not noticed?

Norm

Yep - All of the above. Hope you don’t think I was implying any paranormal ability.

The test suggestion wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. I've traveled to most places in Oz by road so am very aware of the size.