Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[Uncayimmy]

I was pretty sure we had already determined that re-running the same subject more than once was a very bad idea.
Regardless, I'd prefer to get enough subjects to independently randomize their presentation. I guess it all depends on the volunteer pool.

It depends on what you mean by we. ynot is still arguing for using just two subjects because he's convinced he can eliminate any chance of the claimant being able to distinguish people through ordinary means.

 

[ynot]

So now you have to find volunteers willing to swap clothes with each other. What if the clothes get damaged during the process?

Don’t think people are so fussy that they would mind sharing a piece of clothing a few times for a test. If the clothing gets damaged in the process so what? They both still wear the same damaged clothing. But let me “jump around from idea to idea” and suggest that they could simply each wear a new piece of clothing for every test.

So, are you going to have the claimant confirm what is an acceptable scent from 3,000 miles away? What if when she arrives she says the scent is too strong and bothers her? What if one of the subjects has an allergic reaction to it?

And, in case nobody ever told you, perfume doesn't cover body odor. It doesn't mask a fart either.

You still haven't explained how much of the body is visible. As I recall, a the idea of a simple cut-out showing just a few square inches was rejected. If you allow torsos to be seen, you reveal quite a bit of information that could be used to distinguish two people whom have been previously seen and identified.

Same problems with the perfume in terms of the claimant bitching about it being too loud. Furthermore, music is not going to drown out every sound such as the sniffles.

All could be overcome by the person not being tested sitting beside the person being tested behind the screen. There I go jumping from idea to idea again. How unreasonable of me to do this in an attempt to establish a good test method. Blondie has said she wants to be tested with all the test person screened except the lower back - It’s her idea. You think she could tell one person's fart from another's? Boy she must have special powers!

So, you're saying you need volunteers to show up for the comprehensive testing as well as the real testing? Is the claimant going to fly across country as well to certify that the conditions are acceptable?

Blondie wouldn't have to be involved in the pretesting. If 20 or so sceptical, critically thinking people can't tell between the two people then it can be reasonable assumed that Blondie couldn't either (unless her claims are genuine). Regardless of the test used there will always have to be some pretest effort put in by the testers.

Yeh, that makes no sense. The IIG and the JREF don't write protocols and look for takers. People contact them and present claims. The IIG and the JREF then try to negotiate a protocol, and to the best of my knowledge, I haven't seen one like that suggested by either organization.

I'm merely suggesting a test method that I think would be better than the one the IIG used. What test method they accept and use is up to them.

I didn't say that only two test people HAVE to be used. I said only two test people NEED to be used and it would be much simpler to organise if only two were used (IMO).

 

[ynot]

If it helps, I knew you were a man.

So did I. Good aren't we. (spose it's possible that a woman would say you looked kinda cute and cuddly - but more unlikely than a man)

 

[Uncayimmy]

Don’t think people are so fussy that they would mind sharing a piece of clothing a few time for a test. If the clothing gets damaged in the process so what? They both still wear the same damaged clothing. But let me “jump around from idea to idea” and suggest that they could simply each wear a new piece of clothing for every test.

People are funny. Kiss your girlfriend. Okay, now lick a slice of cheese and see if she'll eat it. I'm pointing out the things you have to consider. The more of these little things that "might" be a problem, the harder it is to put together a test.

If the clothing is damaged, then it doesn't work as well for concealment, does it? So now you propose buying a case of burqas or whatever. Fine, that's an added expense. I'm trying to get you to think, but it doesn't seem to be working.

All could be overcome by the person not being tested sitting beside the person being tested.

Again, that's an assertion with no explanation. I have no idea how that would overcome anything. Are you saying that if somebody else isn't bothered by the perfume or loud music then the claimant isn't allowed to be bothered by it? Please tell me that's not the case.

There I go jumping from idea to idea again. How unreasonable of me to do this in an attempt to establish a good test method.

I'd be happy if you actually just gave a well-reasoned suggestion where you addressed the pros and cons instead of just shouting out idea after idea.

Blondie wouldn't have to be involved in the pretesting.

Then you haven't done a "comprehensive" pretest, now have you?

If 20 or so scepoitical, critically thinking people can't tell between the two people then it can be reasonable assumed that Blondie couldn't either (unless her claims are genuine).

No, it's not reasonable to assume that because the claimant is obviously confident enough to spend $1,000 to go for it. Maybe she has practiced this skill for months. Maybe she has an extraordinary (1 in 10,000) sense of smell. How does testing 20 unpracticed skeptics with ordinary smell help you in that regard?

Regardless of the test used there will always have to be some pretest effort put in by the testers.

Wrong! Seriously, man, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel. With the protocol the IIG used, they did not need to contact any subjects or run a mock test before agreeing to the protocol and telling Anita to send the money. They just had subjects show up a little early to cover a few things.

Your suggestion requires finding volunteers and running a mock test before even agreeing to the protocol. That's a lot more work. And remember, the effort required by the organization is a big factor.

I'm merely suggesting a test method that I think would be better than the one the IIG used. What test method they accept and use is up to them.

Okay, that has nothing to do with what I said. You said that if the protocol you suggested was so bad, people would be lining up to take the test. I refuted that notion because the organizations don't come up with protocols and ask for takers. How can people line up for something that's not even offered?

 

[GeeMack]

Vision From Feeling,

To eliminate any possibility of cold reading, which seems hard to eliminate with human subjects, and since you say you are sensing vibrations inside the human body, would you be able to tell the difference between an object vibrating, and an object that was not vibrating, behind a screen. Of course the objects could be as close to the screen as possible so they would be similar to a human back covered by a shirt. And you could specify the vibration frequency you feel you can differentiate from something that is not vibrating.

Or do you see shapes and colors when you look at a kidney, not really vibrations?

Expect ignorance.

 

[GeeMack]

All could be overcome by the person not being tested sitting beside the person being tested behind the screen. There I go jumping from idea to idea again. How unreasonable of me to do this in an attempt to establish a good test method. Blondie has said she wants to be tested with all the test person screened except the lower back - It’s her idea.

Just to set you straight on this point, nothing Anita says about possible protocol ideas is her idea. And for that matter, pretty much nothing you're suggesting is new ground, either. It's all been discussed in various threads here for over a year.

 

[ynot]

People are funny. Kiss your girlfriend. Okay, now lick a slice of cheese and see if she'll eat it. I'm pointing out the things you have to consider. The more of these little things that "might" be a problem, the harder it is to put together a test.

If the clothing is damaged, then it doesn't work as well for concealment, does it? So now you propose buying a case of burqas or whatever. Fine, that's an added expense. I'm trying to get you to think, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Again, that's an assertion with no explanation. I have no idea how that would overcome anything. Are you saying that if somebody else isn't bothered by the perfume or loud music then the claimant isn't allowed to be bothered by it? Please tell me that's not the case.

I'd be happy if you actually just gave a well-reasoned suggestion where you addressed the pros and cons instead of just shouting out idea after idea.

Then you haven't done a "comprehensive" pretest, now have you?

No, it's not reasonable to assume that because the claimant is obviously confident enough to spend $1,000 to go for it. Maybe she has practiced this skill for months. Maybe she has an extraordinary (1 in 10,000) sense of smell. How does testing 20 unpracticed skeptics with ordinary smell help you in that regard?

Wrong! Seriously, man, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel. With the protocol the IIG used, they did not need to contact any subjects or run a mock test before agreeing to the protocol and telling Anita to send the money. They just had subjects show up a little early to cover a few things.

Your suggestion requires finding volunteers and running a mock test before even agreeing to the protocol. That's a lot more work. And remember, the effort required by the organization is a big factor.

Okay, that has nothing to do with what I said. You said that if the protocol you suggested was so bad, people would be lining up to take the test. I refuted that notion because the organizations don't come up with protocols and ask for takers. How can people line up for something that's not even offered?

If two people are sitting close together (back on as they were in the IIG test without a screen) then I would challenge anyone viewing them from around six feet away to identify with certainty which one farts, burps or emits a certain body odour. The test would have a screen of course which would make it even harder. How many times have you been in a group of people and when someone farts everyone blames everyone else?

 

[ynot]

Just to set you straight on this point, nothing Anita says about possible protocol ideas is her idea. And for that matter, pretty much nothing you're suggesting is new ground, either. It's all been discussed in various threads here for over a year.

Whether screening everything but the lower back is her idea or not, she has publically agree to it and to me that’s the most important thing. I didn’t say anything about my test suggestion was original.

There are two main things about the IIG test I didn’t like and think could have been improved.

The test should have stopped the moment she failed.

She should only have been asked to identify which person had a missing kidney.

I have previously explained my reasoning.

 

[Furcifer]

If we admit the possibility of cold reading, then a need to see the subjects is interesting. It suggests that you are getting normal, external, visual clues.

How would you design a test of your possible cold reading skills? It doesn't have to be a large test with witnesses, it could between you and a friend.

I'm no expert, but the way her limitations read, she can't have anything interfering with her cold reading.

Come on, her abilities don't work in a dark room, but she can see into people? Give me a break.

 

[Locknar]

I've looked through the last page or two, and seems this thread is starting to derail. Lets say on the OP folks...which is Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

I am starting a thread to discuss the protocol design for the IIG test for VisionFromFeeling...

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[bookitty]

I'm no expert, but the way her limitations read, she can't have anything interfering with her cold reading.

Come on, her abilities don't work in a dark room, but she can see into people? Give me a break.

I think that Anita "sees" something, although I don't think it is anything real. From all her anecdotes, it starts with her eyes. She sees a person and then sees medical information. A dark room would interfere with that. Within her reality, it makes sense.

Only she knows how her perceptions are triggered. So, I would be very interested in what sort of test Anita could devise (within this reality) to check for cold reading.

 

[Furcifer]

I think that Anita "sees" something, although I don't think it is anything real.

No, I don't deny that one bit.

I think the protocol should have included a sketch artist to accompany Anita. Granted, it would have taken more time, but in the interests of science it would be interesting to have some interpretation of what she "saw".

Anita, if you read this, I think it's something you should consider in your future tests. It would give some insight as to what you see. I think you might find it's not uncommon. Then again, you may have a totally different way of perceiving things.

I can remember closing my eyes and rubbing them as a child. I'd open my eyes, and for a brief moment I was blind to the World except for the dazzling shapes and colours that danced across the blackness. Slowly they would fade and my vision returned. I'd try it again, but the second attempt was never as satisfying as the first. This was my little secret for quite some time, until in my late teens I mentioned it in passing to someone. I was surprised to find that the experience was not that uncommon. To this day I still don't believe that anyone experiences the same intense display of colour and geometric patterns I do. I realize it just a result of blood flowing back into your eyes and stimulating the nerves, but it still seems a little mystical.

 

[GeeMack]

Whether screening everything but the lower back is her idea or not, she has publically agree to it and to me that’s the most important thing. I didn’t say anything about my test suggestion was original.

There are two main things about the IIG test I didn’t like and think could have been improved.

The test should have stopped the moment she failed.

UncaYimmy has given several good reasons why that wouldn't be a particularly good criteria for the protocol.

She should only have been asked to identify which person had a missing kidney.

She claims to be able to see a kidney missing. She should have been required to identify the location of a missing kidney. And she was. And she failed. Identifying a person missing a kidney never was her claim. Well, not until after she failed to demonstrate her actual claim and started dishonestly redefining the claim to suit her narcissistic need to be special.

I have previously explained my reasoning.

... your reasoning for why she should have been asked to do something that wasn't her claim? Guess I missed it.

 

[ynot]

UncaYimmy has given several good reasons why that wouldn't be a particularly good criteria for the protocol.

She claims to be able to see a kidney missing. She should have been required to identify the location of a missing kidney. And she was. And she failed. Identifying a person missing a kidney never was her claim. Well, not until after she failed to demonstrate her actual claim and started dishonestly redefining the claim to suit her narcissistic need to be special.

... your reasoning for why she should have been asked to do something that wasn't her claim? Guess I missed it.

I’ve just read every one of UncaYimmy’s posts in this thread and can’t find where he (was gonna put she ;-) has answered the question - “Why did the test continue after Blondie had failed”. Can UY or yourself please tell me in which post or posts he answered this question? - Thanks

She claims to have some form of x-ray vision and this claimed ability is the basis of subsequent claims like being able to see all internal organs and bones. Seeing kidneys is no more significant to her basic x-ray claim than seeing anything else. Seeing that a preson is missing a kidney from a particular side IS identifying that the person is missing a kidney.

X-ray vision is her claim. Kidneys are red herrings.

She was being tested for 100% accuracy. The only odds of any importance are therefore 100% failure or 100% success.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If two people are sitting close together (back on as they were in the IIG test without a screen) then I would challenge anyone viewing them from around six feet away to identify with certainty which one farts, burps or emits a certain body odour. The test would have a screen of course which would make it even harder. How many times have you been in a group of people and when someone farts everyone blames everyone else?

So, you've changed your test yet again. Now instead of trotting people out one at a time we bring out both at once. And even though the idea of a screen has been thoroughly dismissed, you brought it back into play.

sigh...

 

[ynot]

So, you've changed your test yet again. Now instead of trotting people out one at a time we bring out both at once. And even though the idea of a screen has been thoroughly dismissed, you brought it back into play.

sigh...

The idea of a screen that allows her to view only the lower back area hasn’t been “thoroughly dismissed” by anyone including Blondie.

Please let me know in what post or posts you answered the question - “Why did the test continue after Blondie had failed?“ - Thanks.

Sigh-kick . . .

 

[Uncayimmy]

I’ve just read every one of UncaYimmy’s posts in this thread and can’t find where he (was gonna put she ;-) has answered the question - “Why did the test continue after Blondie had failed”. Can UY or yourself please tell me in which post or posts he answered this question? - Thanks

Because if she gets the first one right, you have provided her valuable feedback about her technique (assuming she's using one).

Seeing that a preson is missing a kidney from a particular side IS identifying that the person is missing a kidney.

But the inverse is not true. For someone who harps on trying to make the test closely match what you believe are the claims, it's sure odd that you're okay with not ever having her once do what she claims to do.

X-ray vision is her claim. Kidneys are red herrings.

That's just wrong and it displays willful ignorance regarding all of the vast amounts of information readily available to you in digest form.

She was being tested for 100% accuracy. The only odds of any importance are therefore 100% failure or 100% success.

Again, willful ignorance. Importance to whom? This was not a private thing between the IIG and VFF.

 

[ynot]

Because if she gets the first one right, you have provided her valuable feedback about her technique (assuming she's using one).

But my question is only concerned about her getting the first one wrong. In this case she has 100% failed the test so why continue? Please answer.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The idea of a screen that allows her to view only the lower back area hasn’t been “thoroughly dismissed” by anyone including Blondie.

Yeh, it has. Go read the kidney protocol thread.

Please let me know in what post or posts you answered the question - “Why did the test continue after Blondie had failed?“ - Thanks.

If you can't keep up with the big boys, drop out of the race. It's bad enough that I have to repeat myself, but do I really need to hold your hand and find the posts for you?

Besides, there are numerous questions you have never bothered to answer. Tell you what, why don't you write out your Final Offer protocol? For each element, cite the pros and cons including time, cost, and likelihood of acceptance by Anita. I'm tired of dancing with you.

 

[ynot]

Again, willful ignorance. Importance to whom? This was not a private thing between the IIG and VFF.

Not important to a whom but important to proving or disproving her claim that she can perform with 100% accuracy.