Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[alleracsum]

If she can’t give a definite answer she can “pass with no penalty” and continue with a different person.

The subject people are “screened” so she can’t tell if a kidney is missing from an external view. The lower back area only needs to be screened with clothing.

If she gives a correct answer another person is tested and this continues until an incorrect answer is given or a pre-agreed number of tests has been successfully completed. The number of tests is sufficient to reasonably reduce the chance of success from lucky guess. 10 - 11 times should be sufficient for a preliminary test (1 in 1024 - 2048 odds).

In your hypothetical protocol:

How many "passes" would Anita be allowed? What would be the consequences of her using up all her passes?

How would you prove the person behind the "window" contraption was or was not missing a kidney? And at what point in the process?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct.

No--she made the claim that she is always right on her website (not only that she has always been right). She always worded it, "When I look at someone. . ." with no indication that there are times when it doesn't happen.

She also made the claim by agreeing to the protocol (which specified the claim of 100% accuracy in the test).

I don’t see any problem with a “pass with no penalty” clause in the protocol. Especially if a 100% success claim is being tested. As long as the test didn’t allow Blondie to make an accurate guess by viewing the exterior of the person rather than the interior.

I do. You really screw up the statistics if you allow this. Consider the IIG protocol. If she had been allowed to pass, she might have made just one guess.

And then there's the "shyness effect" so prevalent with people who claim paranormal powers. What if she didn't feel confident on ANY guesses under controlled circumstances? (Remember Uri Geller on the Tonight Show? You can avoid being caught cheating or simply failing to do what you claim by just saying you don't feel strong this one time--when skeptics are watching.)

 

[ynot]

In your hypothetical protocol:

How many "passes" would Anita be allowed? What would be the consequences of her using up all her passes?

How would you prove the person behind the "window" contraption was or was not missing a kidney? And at what point in the process?

Don’t think a minimum number of “passes” would need to be defined unless it became a problem. She doesn’t seem to have a problem with most people. I would expect the test to fail in no more than around 3-5 guesses.

If she didn’t believe the persons claim of having 1 or 2 kidneys it would have to be proven in the same way as the in the IIG test. This obviously would need to be done immediately after each test. The problem and expense of proving a missing kidney or not is one of the reasons I would rather test if she can see people not kidneys. If she didn’t agree to this test I personally wouldn’t agree to test her. The conditions for seeing kidneys are exactly the same as that for seeing people so refusal because of “remote viewing” is ridiculous and shouldn‘t be accepted.

 

[ynot]

I do. You really screw up the statistics if you allow this. Consider the IIG protocol. If she had been allowed to pass, she might have made just one guess.

And then there's the "shyness effect" so prevalent with people who claim paranormal powers. What if she didn't feel confident on ANY guesses under controlled circumstances? (Remember Uri Geller on the Tonight Show? You can avoid being caught cheating or simply failing to do what you claim by just saying you don't feel strong this one time--when skeptics are watching.)

But it wouldn’t screw up the statistics of the test I’m suggesting. Still 50/50 for each test. The “passes” would be ignored and not considered part of the test.

The "shyness effect" only stops her agreeing to the test because she knows full well she is completely shy of actual x-ray vision ability, and this would be clearly revealed by the test. If she agreed to the test and then claimed that all subjects were unsuitable she would look rather silly. She will simply just never agree to do such a test with silly excuses like "remote viewing".

 

[alleracsum]

Don’t think a minimum number of “passes” would need to be defined unless it became a problem. She doesn’t seem to have a problem with most people. I would expect the test to fail in no more than around 3-5 guesses.

If she didn’t believe the persons claim of having 1 or 2 kidneys it would have to be proven in the same way as the in the IIG test. This obviously would need to be done immediately after each test. The problem and expense of proving a missing kidney or not is one of the reasons I would rather test if she can see people not kidneys. If she didn’t agree to this test I personally wouldn’t agree to test her. The conditions for seeing kidneys are exactly the same as that for seeing people so refusal because of “remote viewing” is ridiculous and shouldn‘t be accepted.

I'm not interested in what you'd personally agree to. You offered a protocol for a kidney detection test and I'm simply asking you how many "passes" she would be allowed. It's not a minor consideration. It's a rather huge one. If "passes without penalty" are OK you'd have to state how MANY are allowed and be prepared with enough Subjects to make up for those "passed" Subjects.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct. One of the very early sticking points was that she wanted a test where she could "pass" on some people (with no penalty), because she didn't always "see" something and some people were harder to read than others.

Yay! Somebody said this so I didn't have to!

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

This is why an “is there a person there or not” test is much better for her. To establish if there is a person there she can see bones or any internal organs. Much better chance of success for her and she should insist on this test if her claims are genuine. Wonder why she refuses it?

Some questions have been answered in the past http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5012840&postcount=650 Like I said:

How about we just put all the volunteers in an underground bunker that is soundproof and waterproof, blindfold me, drive me 100 miles away in an unknown direction, and ask me how many kidneys they have and what the winning lottery numbers are.

I made that post when I was young and oblivious, because today I think a test by the Rhine Research Center is worse than no test at all. Why? Because of that mistake they did in the past where they counted the hits and ignored the misses. And because they have Psi Games for kids. But I still think that I can't do a remote viewing test.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... But I still think that I can't do a remote viewing test.

Correct, you failed. The kidney test you failed was a remote viewing test.Remote viewing is claiming to see things that others can't through magical means, like looking a persons body and seeing if they have a missing organ.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

After reading most of the posts in this thread, first of all I want to commend you all for being capable of such fine, civil discussions that I assume are only possible in my absence.

I agree that the IIG test seems more like a challenge for a cash prize. They do set high standards and they do seem mostly interested in a pass/fail result, but that is what they do. My objective is to learn more about my experience, and for that the IIG test is only a part. My goal is not to become a practicing psychic. It is to investigate an experience and to contribute to skepticism by allowing that seemingly paranormal experience to arrive at a rational scientific conclusion, even though I am not at that final conclusion yet as there is more to learn, but that's where it's headed.

I have never denied the failing results of trial 1 and 3 in the test. You also see several examples of how I published failing scores from various tests at home where I tried different test conditions. I am not embarrassed about failure, because failure is a part of science and discovery.

I identified some things that I felt were issues with the IIG test, and those will be corrected in a next test. If I as the claimant complain that I genuinely felt that larger persons take longer to see through then it is good for skepticism and for my claim if I go through the expense of setting up another test that addresses that concern, either by eliminating such subjects from a test or by allowing me more time with them, and then if I still fail that will be a more conclusive fail, and that will better set the example to other woos. Subject 12 in trial 1, but also subject 31 in trial 3 took me much longer to feel through. Before the test I had not experienced trying to feel kidneys through a larger person and I was not able to know that this would pose a problem. Part of having a test is to try it out and to test not only the hypothesis but also the testing conditions.

Another genuine complaint by me was of fatigue. I wrote this clearly on my draft paper which is signed by James Underdown and stapled to the back of the answer sheet for trial 3, and if I was filmed from the front it should be clear that I was affected.

I see nothing wrong with correcting two issues that I could not have foreseen. Before the test I did plenty of testing of test conditions and had assumed that that work was complete, but I learned even more during the test that I could not have expected.

Not only do I learn things about the claim that some might argue suggest something un-paranormal, such as that I need to see the clothed back of the person and not through a screen, but I also discover how the claim will not only work with better test conditions but even prefers better test conditions, such as that I want to see the persons from behind and not front, have no eye contact, and now I learned that I'd much rather see only the back of the persons, not arms, legs, etc.

Other issues brought by others will also be dealt with, such as not seeing arms or legs of subjects, or information leakage.

And let me post this again:

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct. One of the very early sticking points was that she wanted a test where she could "pass" on some people (with no penalty), because she didn't always "see" something and some people were harder to read than others.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Good testing directly tests the claim not just a by-product of the claim.

I don't know what your point is, but I do know it has nothing to do with the objections I raised about immediate feedback and setting the number of trials in advance.

Blondie’s claimed ability is that she can see through clothing, skin and flesh with 100% accuracy and this is what should have been tested.

I have to admit I'm getting more than a little irritated at this point.

* Anita has made over 30 claims, many of which are documented here, not just the one claim you keep focusing on. Why did the IIG focus on missing kidneys? Because that's what the claimant presented to them.

* I and many others have made probably hundreds of suggestions for various ways Anita could be tested, some which were incredibly simple. She rejected every single one of them.

* The IIG negotiations lasted two years because Anita would not present any single claim and conditions which were acceptable to the IIG . The kidney test was the first and only specific claim for which both sides could arrive at a reasonable protocol.

* Anita is a human being who doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to do. She's not a lab rat.

So, to say they "should have" tested a particular something a particular way ignores the reality. Do you think they had much choice? It came down to this test or no test at all. If you want to discuss the ways this test could have been improved, then go read the very involved Kidney Protocol thread and look at all the suggestions Anita rejected.

You can keep harping about how seemingly inconsistent it is for her to reject screens as "remote viewing" and thus not part of her claim, but it won't change the fact that from Day One this was never on the table.

If she can’t give a definite answer she can “pass with no penalty” and continue with a different person.

This creates an obvious logistical problem. You have to limit the number of passes because you can only get so many people together for so long. What happens when she makes 10 passes, gets three right (none of whom were missing a kidney), and you run out of people?

The subject people are “screened” so she can’t tell if a kidney is missing from an external view. The lower back area only needs to be screened with clothing.

Without actually using this "screen" in person, how does Anita "know" her ability works? Obviously, she's never done it that way before, so it seems perfectly reasonable for her require some test runs. That's not so easy with her being 3,000 miles away. You can come up with the best ideas in the world, but if she doesn't agree, there's nothing you can do about it.

Anita repeatedly rejected full screens and expressed serious doubt in regards to suggestions similar to yours. What? You thought you were the first person to make such a suggestion? No, you weren't.

The method the IIG used was very similar to what Anita said she had done in the past, and the addition of hats and scarves was not considered by her to be an impediment. There's "ideal" and then there's "acceptable to both parties."

If she gives a correct answer another person is tested and this continues until an incorrect answer is given or a pre-agreed number of tests has been successfully completed. The number of tests is sufficient to reasonably reduce the chance of success from lucky guess. 10 - 11 times should be sufficient for a preliminary test (1 in 1024 - 2048 odds).

Which means you need to find at least 6 people missing kidneys. Since you're allowing her to pass on people, you need even more on-hand just in case.

Suppose she gets the first one right - the person is missing a kidney. Suppose she gets the second one wrong (both kidneys). You stop the test. Do you really think the Average Joe is going to call that a fair test?

All, Some or none of the subject people may have a missing kidney or not.

You need to know how many are missing a kidney in order to calculate the odds. It's not a 50-50 test if you don't have an equal distribution of targets and decoys *and* if she doesn't pass on targets and decoys equally.

 

[alleracsum]

Could have sworn the OP was called Case Study: The IIG Protocol. My mistake. Enjoy yourselves.

 

[ynot]

Some questions have been answered in the past http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5012840&postcount=650 Like I said:

How about we just put all the volunteers in an underground bunker that is soundproof and waterproof, blindfold me, drive me 100 miles away in an unknown direction, and ask me how many kidneys they have and what the winning lottery numbers are.

I made that post when I was young and oblivious, because today I think a test by the Rhine Research Center is worse than no test at all. Why? Because of that mistake they did in the past where they counted the hits and ignored the misses. And because they have Psi Games for kids. But I still think that I can't do a remote viewing test.

Comparing what I’m suggesting with an underground bunker is pure obfuscation. What I’m suggesting is absolutely no different th what you have suggested yourself in the other thread . . .

Post #1188 - “The next test will have better screens, that also conceal head, arms and legs of the subjects. No hair, tattoos, or skin will be visible.”

Post #1263 - “I want to see how well I do, or don't do, with more elaborate screens.”

Post #1339 - “Only the back areas of subjects will be visible, through a cut-out portion of an extensive screen.”

You would be able to see the clothed lower back area as directly as you could in the IIG test. No more or less “remore viewing” than then. You are hidding behind words that don’t make any sense because you know full well that an “is there a person there or not” test would quickly and conclusively reaveal that you have no x-ray vision ability.

Before you claim that for some mysterious reason you need to know there is a person there before your x-ray vision will work - Why do you need to know this, and how do you know you need to know this? I bet you have never even tried to see use your x-ray vision without knowing there is a person there so how do you know you can’t do it? Clearly you know you can’t because you know you have no actual x-ray vision. Unfortunately you don’t have the honesty to allow yourself to be tested honestly.

 

[Uncayimmy]

But it wouldn’t screw up the statistics of the test I’m suggesting. Still 50/50 for each test. The “passes” would be ignored and not considered part of the test.

Passing affects probability because you calculate the odds based on what was available to her in the selections. If like you describe you don't distribute the targets and decoys equally and she passes on both of your decoys, she had a 0% chance of getting anybody right with a missing a kidney.

Furthermore, you and others seemed very concerned about information leakage. If there is any leakage at all, being able to pass and getting immediate feedback about her answer greatly increases the value of any leaks.

The "shyness effect" only stops her agreeing to the test because she knows full well she is completely shy of actual x-ray vision ability, and this would be clearly revealed by the test. If she agreed to the test and then claimed that all subjects were unsuitable she would look rather silly. She will simply just never agree to do such a test with silly excuses like "remote viewing".

Why would she look silly if she did exactly what the test allowed her to do? I think you're projecting your preconceived notions of her silliness on this hypothetical but very real possibility.

Why would you set up a test where one possible result is Inconclusive? Besides passing on everyone, what if she lucks out and gets four in a row, then decides to pass until you run out of people? That's what I would do if I were her and found myself in that position. And I'd trumpet myself as a winner having validated everything I ever claimed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, I think you will find that from the very beginning she has only said that when she has made an observation, she has been 100% correct. One of the very early sticking points was that she wanted a test where she could "pass" on some people (with no penalty), because she didn't always "see" something and some people were harder to read than others.

Yay! Somebody said this so I didn't have to!

What does this statement mean then?

I can always detect medical information at any time and it requires no effort from me, and so far the information has always been correct

Linky

Another genuine complaint by me was of fatigue. I wrote this clearly on my draft paper which is signed by James Underdown and stapled to the back of the answer sheet for trial 3, and if I was filmed from the front it should be clear that I was affected.

O rly?

I was pleased to find that not only do the perceptions work if I see the person from behind, but that I would actually prefer that. I learned that I only need a few seconds to form and conclude on the perceptions.

That doesn't sound at all like the demonstration, does it?

 

[TSR]

That doesn't sound at all like the demonstration, does it?

.
To be fair, she *did* detect that first missing kidney in only a few moments.

You know -- the one she was *told* was missing before she started?

It only took 5 minutes each if she didn't already know, in which case she selected two possibles -- even on the trial about which she "felt very positive."

Oooops, sorry: of which was 100% sure.

Really, really.

I wonder why she hasn't responded in the other thread yet...
.

 

[Furcifer]

* Anita has made over 30 claims, many of which are documented here,

I think you answered my question.

Are these claims part of this "data" you are talking about VFF? This conglomeration of random events you've assigned some significance to?
It's quite the laundry list of woo.

I never saw all these claims before. Unreal.

Sorry for the off topic posts. I'll refrain from here on in.

 

[Akhenaten]

.
To be fair, she *did* detect that first missing kidney in only a few moments.

You know -- the one she was *told* was missing before she started?

It only took 5 minutes each if she didn't already know, in which case she selected two possibles -- even on the trial about which she "felt very positive."

Oooops, sorry: of which was 100% sure.

Really, really.

I wonder why she hasn't responded in the other thread yet...
.

Well, she's a busy girl, but then, I don't mind re-asking the questions as appropriate. We'll get an answer eventually.

 

[ynot]

Passing affects probability because you calculate the odds based on what was available to her in the selections. If like you describe you don't distribute the targets and decoys equally and she passes on both of your decoys, she had a 0% chance of getting anybody right with a missing a kidney.

Furthermore, you and others seemed very concerned about information leakage. If there is any leakage at all, being able to pass and getting immediate feedback about her answer greatly increases the value of any leaks.

Why would she look silly if she did exactly what the test allowed her to do? I think you're projecting your preconceived notions of her silliness on this hypothetical but very real possibility.

Why would you set up a test where one possible result is Inconclusive? Besides passing on everyone, what if she lucks out and gets four in a row, then decides to pass until you run out of people? That's what I would do if I were her and found myself in that position. And I'd trumpet myself as a winner having validated everything I ever claimed.

She does’t just claim to be able to see kidneys, she also claims to be able to do so with 100% accuracy. What’s unfair about a test that requires 100% accuracy to discontinues if she fails to achieve 100% accuracy? What reason is there to continue with a test that has already failed? Given the IIG test required 100% accuracy why did it continue after she had failed? If the answer is because it was in the protocol them my next question is why was it in the protocol of a test that was requiring 100% accuracy?

The test I’m suggesting is for her to say if a single person has a missing kidney or not. The only reason this test needs to be repeated is to reduce the likelihood of success by lucky guess. If she gets it wrong on the first guess there is no need for it to be repeated. If she has genuine x-ray vision ability then repeating the test to reduce the likelihood of failure by unlucky guess isn’t required (effectively what happened in the IIG test). The repetition of the test is not the test.

If she knew that half the test people had a missing kidney and she correctly guessed the first half then she would automatically know what the second half had (no x-ray vision required). The test I’m suggesting is - “does this person have a missing kidney or not?”. It’s not - “one of these people has a missing kidney which one is it?”. If the particular person she is required to “scan” may or may not have a missing kidney then the odds for that single guess are 50/50. The person either does or doesn’t have a missing kidney. There’s also no reason for her to know how many possible test people there are or that the same test person may be being used more than once. In fact the test could be done with identical twins with one having a missing kidney. She wouldn’t know which twin was being used for any test and they could be used any amount of times.

She would look silly if she passed on too many test people because she has never done this in the past and it wouldn’t be a credible thing for her to do. The test would require that a certain number of correct guesses were given to be successfully completed. If she didn’t complete that number of guesses the test wouldn’t be inconclusive it would uncompleted. If she made four lucky guesses then claimed that all subsequent test people were unsuitable all that would need to be done would be to reused one of the “lucky guess” people again without her knowledge. If she claimed this peron was unsuitable it obviously wouldn’t be true.

Obviously she isn’t a lab rat, but neither are the people that agree to test her. Seems to me she expects the testers to navigate through more mazes than she is prepared to do.

 

[alleracsum]

She would look silly if she passed on too many test people because she has never done this in the past and it wouldn’t be a credible thing for her to do. The test would require that a certain number of correct guesses were given to be successfully completed. If she didn’t complete that number of guesses the test wouldn’t be inconclusive it would uncompleted.

"Looking silly" is not a quantifiable threshold. She would have to be given an absolute limit. What would that be?

Could you clarify how the "uncompleted" option would work? "Uncompleted" would equal "fail", is that correct?

 

[ynot]

"Looking silly" is not a quantifiable threshold. She would have to be given an absolute limit. What would that be?

Could you clarify how the "uncompleted" option would work? "Uncompleted" would equal "fail", is that correct?

If she passed on so many people that the test couldn’t be completed then she would have failed to complete the test. She wouldn’t have failed the test as the test wasn’t completed. In other words the test would have failed because she wouldn’t or couldn’t complete it. No different than her doing any test and stopping halfway through because she claimed to be too tired to continue. She couldn’t credibly claim she succeeded any more than the testers could credibly claim she failed.

There only needs to be two test people involved. One with two kidneys and the other with one kidney. As long as she didn’t know which person she was testing at any time these two people could be used for any number of tests. She could confirm the suitability of these two people before testing began and no “free pass” option would be required.