Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF

[Uncayimmy]

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.

I don't know how to explain it any simpler. If you stop it when she's wrong, then by definition you do not stop it when she's right. This is the same thing as saying, "Yes. Miss Claimant, you were correct in that trial." In your ridiculous scenario with having just two people, that kind of feedback is extremely risky.

What's the advantage of stopping it early? Saving a little time in a day you've already allotted the damned test anyway? What else? Or is it your desperate need to have just one of your suggestions accepted as a good idea?

 

[ynot]

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

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.

If you were keeping up yourself you would know that I’m talking about a new protocol for a new test. What has the IIG protocol got to do with this?

Yes please hold my hand. As I said I took the time to read every one of your posts in this thread and I can’t see where you have answered my question. That you won’t or can’t tell where you did answer the question suggests that you didn’t and you are resorting to personal insults to fudge the issue. Can anyone else please help UY and myself out and tell me where he answered my question?

 

[alleracsum]

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).

I have lost track of the hypothetical protocol you are suggesting. You seem to have re-considered certain aspects as a result of the dialogue on this thread. Whatever. I'm simply trying to steer this thread back to something resembling the OP.

Can you describe in detail how YOU would construct and administer a test based on Anita's claim to be able to see kidneys (or the absence of same) in the human body?

 

[ynot]

I don't know how to explain it any simpler. If you stop it when she's wrong, then by definition you do not stop it when she's right. This is the same thing as saying, "Yes. Miss Claimant, you were correct in that trial." In your ridiculous scenario with having just two people, that kind of feedback is extremely risky.

What's the advantage of stopping it early? Saving a little time in a day you've already allotted the damned test anyway? What else? Or is it your desperate need to have just one of your suggestions accepted as a good idea?

If she gives a wrong answer she has failed to demonstrate her claim and there is no purpose or need to continue.

If she gives a correct answer it doesn‘t mean she has succeeded because it could have easily been a lucky guess from 50/50 odds. Only a consecutive series of correct answers that reduce the chance of overall success by lucky guess can be credibly claimed as an actual success.

Any other members care to give their opinion on this matter?

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you were keeping up yourself you would know that I’m talking about a new protocol for a new test. What has the IIG protocol got to do with this?

The thread is called Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF. Every suggestion is evaluated in that context. There is no "new test" for Anita unless you plan to do it.

Yes please hold my hand.

No.

Answer the many direct questions I have put to you.

 

[ynot]

I have lost track of the hypothetical protocol you are suggesting. You seem to have re-considered certain aspects as a result of the dialogue on this thread. Whatever. I'm simply trying to steer this thread back to something resembling the OP.

Can you describe in detail how YOU would construct and administer a test based on Anita's claim to be able to see kidneys (or the absence of same) in the human body?

She would be required to say if a single person had a missing kidney or not (side isn’t a requirement).

She would be required to do this without failure enough times to sufficiently reduce the chance of overall success by lucky guess (can’t be removed entirely).

If she gave an incorrect guess she would have failed and the test wouldn’t continue.

If it could be established that two test people could be viewed in a way that normal observation couldn’t distinguish between then then only two people would need to be used..

If this wasn’t possible then a sufficiently large number of people would be used.

She wouldn’t know if all, one or none had a missing kidney. The only percentage I’m testing for is 100%.

 

[ynot]

The thread is called Case Study: The IIG Protocol for VFF. Every suggestion is evaluated in that context. There is no "new test" for Anita unless you plan to do it.

I don't like to criticize without offering an alternative.

No.

Answer the many direct questions I have put to you.

I take that as being you never answered my question and you were lying that you did. Others can take it whatever way they choose.

 

[alleracsum]

Thank you.

How many Subjects and how many Targets would need to be on hand to insure that the test could be completed should the Claimant get incredibly lucky? (Thus avoiding the "one strike and you're out" rule.)

 

[GeeMack]

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

The fact that you didn't or weren't willing to understand the explanation doesn't mean it wasn't provided.

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.

But that doesn't make the inverse true. Being able to detect which person is missing a kidney is not her claim. There never was a reason to test her for that, and the IIG didn't test her for that. The test was to determine if she could see which kidney was missing from each of three groups of six people. She couldn't do it.

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

She has made dozens of claims to having assorted magical powers, but the claim she was demonstrating at the IIG show was, very specifically, her claim to be able to see a missing kidney at will and to prove it by doing it successfully in each of three groups of six people.

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

Yep. And the protocol, as arranged by Anita and the IIG, was to demonstrate to the world that she could see which kidney was missing in each of three separate rounds. The protocol specified that the results would be declared after the three rounds, and at that point, if it was shown that she didn't successfully detect all three missing kidneys, then she was deemed to have failed 100% at proving her claim.

ETA: Looks like I reiterated much of what UncaYimmy said, but some things apparently need repeating to be understood.

 

[GeeMack]

She would be required to say if a single person had a missing kidney or not (side isn’t a requirement).

She claims to be able to see a missing kidney. Why do you keep insisting that it would be a good idea to test her for something else?

 

[Uncayimmy]

If she gives a wrong answer she has failed to demonstrate her claim and there is no purpose or need to continue.

If she gives a correct answer it doesn‘t mean she has succeeded because it could have easily been a lucky guess from 50/50 odds. Only a consecutive series of correct answers that reduce the chance of overall success by lucky guess can be credibly claimed as an actual success.

Wow. Honestly, I am at the point where I just don't know what else to say because I'm not sure whether you are missing key concepts or just using flawed ones.

It sounds to me like you are assuming that you are able to, without even a shadow of a doubt, completely blind the claimant in such a way that the only possible method of detecting a kidney is something paranormal. The problem is, that's not possible. We've been through it several times already. There is no way you are getting perfect blinding.

Therefore, when the claimant gives an answer, it is not random. It's based on something. Maybe that something is relevant, maybe it's not. The IIG has to be concerned that it's based on something that they did not anticipate or fully appreciate. Therefore, they will not tell her she's right because that could only reinforce that her mad Fart Locating Skills are fully operational.

Since stopping after she's wrong by definition requires continuing if she's right, it is not an option.

Now, you tell me what the big advantage is to stopping?

 

[ynot]

Thank you.

How many Subjects and how many Targets would need to be on hand to insure that the test could be completed should the Claimant get incredibly lucky? (Thus avoiding the "one strike and you're out" rule.)

Depends if it was a preliminary test or a final test for my money. For a preliminary 11 correct consecutive answers would be sufficient (1 in 2,048). For a final something like 20 would be required (1 in 1,485,576). The number of test people required would depend on whether only two could be used or not. If not a greater number would be used (20?). I don't see that these people couldn't be pretested by Blondie to confirm that they were all suitable test subjects. This would negate the need for free passes. In any event, I don't think she has said that there has ever been a person that has been totally unsuitable, but just more difficult.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I don't like to criticize without offering an alternative.

That makes no sense. You said, "What has the IIG protocol got to do with this?" and now you're saying that you don't want to criticize them without offering an alternative? Huh? This whole thread is supposed to be about what the IIG did right, what they did wrong, what other things they could or could not have done and (what you seem to forget) why.

I take that as being you never answered my question and you were lying that you did. Others can take it whatever way they choose.

I've already answered it several times and you keep arguing that you don't like my answer, perhaps because you cannot understand it. That doesn't mean I didn't answer.

 

[alleracsum]

I don't see that these people couldn't be pretested by Blondie to confirm that they were all suitable test subjects. This would negate the need for free passes. In any event, I don't think she has said that there has ever been a person that has been totally unsuitable, but just more difficult.

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]

Wow. Honestly, I am at the point where I just don't know what else to say because I'm not sure whether you are missing key concepts or just using flawed ones.

It sounds to me like you are assuming that you are able to, without even a shadow of a doubt, completely blind the claimant in such a way that the only possible method of detecting a kidney is something paranormal. The problem is, that's not possible. We've been through it several times already. There is no way you are getting perfect blinding.

Therefore, when the claimant gives an answer, it is not random. It's based on something. Maybe that something is relevant, maybe it's not. The IIG has to be concerned that it's based on something that they did not anticipate or fully appreciate. Therefore, they will not tell her she's right because that could only reinforce that her mad Fart Locating Skills are fully operational.

Since stopping after she's wrong by definition requires continuing if she's right, it is not an option.

Now, you tell me what the big advantage is to stopping?

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

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

 

[Uncayimmy]

She has made dozens of claims to having assorted magical powers, but the claim she was demonstrating at the IIG show was, very specifically, her claim to be able to see a missing kidney at will and to prove it by doing it successfully in each of three groups of six people.

It's also worth noting that Anita only claimed to have detected a missing kidney just one time. The witnesses to this event, including Anita, all concur that even though Anita had the option of circling "Kidney" in the "Missing Organs" section of the form she was completing, she did not.

I point this out for a few reasons. First, to show ynot that his insistence about the nature of her claims is woefully unfounded. Of all her anecdotes, this was the least believable one. ynot makes it sound like she has spent the last few years running around spotting people with missing kidneys.

Second, it shows the ridiculous things groups like the IIG have to deal with and explains why the JREF now requires an academic affidavit and some press coverage before protocol negotiations begin. Anita did nothing to deserve this kind of time from the IIG.

ETA: Looks like I reiterated much of what UncaYimmy said, but some things apparently need repeating to be understood.

I'm thinking of using a larger font.

 

[ynot]

That makes no sense. You said, "What has the IIG protocol got to do with this?" and now you're saying that you don't want to criticize them without offering an alternative? Huh? This whole thread is supposed to be about what the IIG did right, what they did wrong, what other things they could or could not have done and (what you seem to forget) why.


I've already answered it several times and you keep arguing that you don't like my answer, perhaps because you cannot understand it. That doesn't mean I didn't answer.

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

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?

 

[ynot]

It's also worth noting that Anita only claimed to have detected a missing kidney just one time. The witnesses to this event, including Anita, all concur that even though Anita had the option of circling "Kidney" in the "Missing Organs" section of the form she was completing, she did not.

I point this out for a few reasons. First, to show ynot that his insistence about the nature of her claims is woefully unfounded. Of all her anecdotes, this was the least believable one. ynot makes it sound like she has spent the last few years running around spotting people with missing kidneys.

Second, it shows the ridiculous things groups like the IIG have to deal with and explains why the JREF now requires an academic affidavit and some press coverage before protocol negotiations begin. Anita did nothing to deserve this kind of time from the IIG.

I'm thinking of using a larger font.

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.

 

[fromdownunder]

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.

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

 

[ynot]

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.

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.