Vision From Feeling

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
Hello Skeptics,
School has started and this JREF discussion and investigation have fallen a bit lower down on my list of priorities.

Why doesn't that surprise me ?

Well at least she's got her priorities right. What was it to be? Pursing this malarky or getting down to some real work? Perhaps her head is screwed on after all.

 

[Moochie]

Well at least she's got her priorities right. What was it to be? Pursing this malarky or getting down to some real work? Perhaps her head is screwed on after all.

It appears to be, doesn't it? That's why I'm not ready to dismiss "Anita" as a case worthy of Freud just yet. To me, his/her "behavior" here bespeaks some sort of hoax, or, as desertgal suggested, a concerted effort to become the next Sylvia Browne.


M.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know. Hoaxes are usually less... disjointed.

 

[Ashles]

I left replying to this one until last as I feel it is the one that has the most actual content with regard to test design and I wanted to address all the other things first.
(Incidentally I still don't know how to do that quote within quote thing that everyone else seems to do so effortlessly)

ME: "I'm not sure if this question has been asked or answered before - Who are the skeptics? Are they part of a specific group or organisation?"

I hope to involve members of the local Winston Salem skeptics group. One of them I've already asked and received a preliminary yes. There is another one I have in mind and will ask. Yet another one has expressed interest if he can make the time.

So there are no skeptics definitely involved as of yet?

Do you intend to use three skeptics or do you only need one for your study?
Does the skeptic group view this as a proper trial or do they view it just as a 'study', without weight in terms of demonstrating pranormal ability.

For that matter do you view this as a study which might potentially demonstrate you do not have the ability to detect health information?
Or will you view a negative result as inconclusive towards anything?

Because if the results of the study are going to be considered inconclusive either way, no matter what the results are, is there any real point in carrying it out?

If you accepted that a negative result would indicate you were mistaken about your beliefs in your ability (which I believe you have said earlier in the thread) then there is the potential for an actual useful result for the test and I would encourage it to take place.
If that were to occur I would certainly applaud you for the strength to confront your beliefs in an honest manner.

Would you have objections if anyone here were to contact the Winston Salem skeptic group at a general level?
I totally undertand if you do.

And I intend to ask the entire group again once I know the exact details of how the study will be carried out. I intend to present the finished study plan again and letting them decide whether they want to participate once they have that information and know exactly what will be involved.

Do you mean us, or Winston Salem skeptics?
We'd love to have a look at the proposed study details.

I will not give any names until they have given final approval of attending and then only if I have their specific consent to make their names known. The study requires that at least one skeptic make his/her identity known in order to present and verify the results of the study.

I think that's all fair enough.

ME: "What ailments do you consider undetectable to cold reading?"

I do not know exactly yet, but I am going along with the hope that some would.

That was the point I was trying to make. No ailments (nothing in fact) should be considered undetectable to cold reading, depending on the test protocol.
Not speaking certainly massively reduces the chance of cold reading, particularly if the ailment is not restricted to a particular location, or (in my opinion) is in the torso. It would be quite hard to give away, say, a removed appendix if no-one was speaking.

If no such ailments are available for a test, then I must be able to agree to a test that fully disables cold reading. The very best scenario that I intend to investigate is having ailments that are normally non-detectable as well as disabling cold reading, now wouldn't that be nice.

Agreed.

The study will answer some of the questions regarding what I can and can not do. Once I come across ailments that I think might be candidates I will of course bring those here and expect them to go through a thorough analysis that should help to conclude whether they are undetectable to cold reading or not. Some of what I've been thinking are heart bypass surgery, breast implants, vasectomy, missing appendages (although that is yet to be experienced and tried out, I might be able to do it). I know there might be many others.

Missing appendages are actually quite detectable to cold reading.
Would you be able to provide a list of ailments you feel most confident of detecting?
We can look at the test and try and help reduce the risk of cold reading.

Although I do have to say, for all this talk of cold reading, we must remember that, from our point of view, an equally likely (maybe even more likely) explanation that must still be considred is that your readings have been simply incorrect and subsequently been redefined by you as hits. We have seen that happen in this thread. And before you repeat your claim that you have described the instances correctly, please remember that we don't know that and cannot accept those claims without verification. Which we don't currently have.

However even a reasonably run study should be able to indicate if that is happening.

Would the study be video recorded? Or at least audio recorded?

Me: "If you don't actually speak to the person (and neither do they) then I would contend that non-region specific ailments would be pretty much immune to cold reading. E.g. blood disorders.
I assume neither you or the subjects will be speaking. Is that correct?"

Correct, neither me or the subjects speak. And I don't agree with your idea of blood disorders, unless you have some specific ones in mind. A blood disorder such as anemia might be externally detectable, but I am sure there are others that might be better candidates for a test than that.

I am referring to blood disorders with preferably no external symptoms.
Why would you object to those?
I thought you saw anything unusual, down to a molecular level.
For the purposes of this test would you consider, say, diabetes a blood disorder?
Or would you notice a problem with the pancreas?

That neither you or the subjects speak is great.

 

[skeen]

You would tend to think that proving you're the most incredible person in the history of mankind, flipping Science on its head, and all around changing the world forever might be just about the highest priority you could have.

Heh, I guess not! I'm sure it can wait, Anita. You can do all of that some other day.

(It's amazing she can't see how ridiculous all of this is.)

 

[desertgal]

Well at least she's got her priorities right. What was it to be? Pursing this malarky or getting down to some real work? Perhaps her head is screwed on after all.

We'll see. She started this when her fall semester was still in session, and that didn't seem to slow her down any.

It appears to be, doesn't it? That's why I'm not ready to dismiss "Anita" as a case worthy of Freud just yet. To me, his/her "behavior" here bespeaks some sort of hoax, or, as desertgal suggested, a concerted effort to become the next Sylvia Browne.

Fair enough. Also fairly, she could be making that effort if she is delusional, too.

 

[desertgal]

That's what I was getting at when I pointed out to Anita that she was attempting to "back-channel" the thread. It seemed to me an obvious bit of chicanery to convince her audience here that she was receiving support and encouragement behind the scenes from some whom she deemed "senior sceptics".

I have to say that seemed a bit like calculated dishonesty, as is misquoting people in her replies. It's hard to put this behaviour down to simply suffering from delusions.

She really wants to be able to use references to the JREF (Forum) and the brilliant UncaYimmy to lend her website some credibility. Credit to her for choosing the best but I've got to wonder how she thinks this thread could ever be seen as supportive of her claims.

If she's delusional, she's cherry picking the responses to support her claims on her website, and on here to support her delusions of persecution. (A lot of delusional people CAN differentiate fantasy from reality - they just elect not to, and they'll only 'download' information that supports their delusion, and discard the rest.)

If she isn't delusional, then she's still cherry picking and editing the feedback to serve as evidence of her ability, in the same way that Sylvia Browne will claim she has had thousands of 'accurate readings', but not address James Randi's challenge or Robert Lancaster's website.

To me, this is just further evidence that she is delusional, and she is cherry picking whatever she can to support her delusions. If she weren't delusional, it makes absolutely no sense that she would link website visitors to this thread, where it makes it clear that her claim isn't blindly accepted, and that she's done a little creative editing where UncaYimmy is concerned.

(Well, except for the "brilliant" part. We all know that.)

What has stood out for me is her recent response to several valid observations by Cuddles. Not only did she attempt to use "schizotypal disorder" as an insult-which was inaccurate and offensive-but the entire post was completely irrational and, really, an over the top, full blown overreaction. She really seemed to lose control - and it was premeditated. Just that one post encapsulated all the extreme traits we've noticed. It was alarming.

As well, the post where she typed her thoughts in blue - that was seriously creepy.

 

[Locknar]

You would tend to think that proving you're the most incredible person in the history of mankind, flipping Science on its head, and all around changing the world forever might be just about the highest priority you could have.

Heh, I guess not! I'm sure it can wait, Anita. You can do all of that some other day.

(It's amazing she can't see how ridiculous all of this is.)

I can't help but to worry that any delay on her part would jeopardize her winning the 2009 (or did she mean 2010) Nobel Prize.

Oh wait, she is from Sweden..what was I thinking!

 

[Moochie]

We'll see. She started this when her fall semester was still in session, and that didn't seem to slow her down any.




Fair enough. Also fairly, she could be making that effort if she is delusional, too.

I agree. It's the not knowing that keeps my interest in the thread. It's also the not knowing that keeps me from engaging very much with the person. If he/she is delusional, I wouldn't want to exacerbate the condition. That's not to say that I'm against a well-meant admonition by others for this person to seek medical advice, but just that I'm not qualified to do that.

Having said that, allow me to say sincerely, "Anita," all you've written here and elsewhere points to either a severely deluded person, or someone looking to enter the woo economy, or both. Whichever it is, you'll find no succor here. These (by this I mean us, your) skeptic munchkins have their feet firmly in the observable universe. If we are able to offer any help to someone "lost in space," it's from that particular perspective.


M.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Just a couple of minor observations / comments / nitpicks.

Missing appendages are actually quite detectable to cold reading.
Would you be able to provide a list of ailments you feel most confident of detecting?
We can look at the test and try and help reduce the risk of cold reading.

This is a minor picking of nits, but I believe that her use of appendages here does not include the obvious things like arms and legs. I think she is using the term to mean things like appendixes or some such. One of those language use things.

I am referring to blood disorders with preferably no external symptoms.
Why would you object to those?
I thought you saw anything unusual, down to a molecular level.
For the purposes of this test would you consider, say, diabetes a blood disorder?
Or would you notice a problem with the pancreas?

That neither you or the subjects speak is great.

She seems to only be objecting to blood disorders that have visible external signs, such as anaemia, if that is a valid example. I don't know for sure, but I get the point she is making. Nothing that is available to be cold read.

Diabetes would be an interesting test, though, as long as the person was, say, a Type I diabetic, which would not have any externally obvious signs, for the most part, if the subjects are chosen carefully. Or a test with both Type I and Type II diabetics, all looking to be in a similar health and body weight / size, and see if she can tell them apart, which she should be able to if her alleged abilities are valid.

-------------
Steve

The Skeptic Canuck

 

[Akhenaten]

It makes me wonder how much back-channelling has been attempted by Anita.

It seems quite a few people here have been PMd.

It's not just here. This is a pattern that appeared early and continues.


Not everyone in her humble Swedish village was made aware of The Ability™ - only selected family and friends.

Her university isn't allowed generally to know about The Ability™ - only three professors and a fellow student.

Her negotiations with other skeptic groups are at an impasse yet she has stated here on several occasions that she has contacted individual members of both the IIG and the Winston/Salem Skeptics. This includes, apparently, recruiting skeptics for The Study™.

A number of PMs have been exchanged with and requests for one-on-one discussions made with members of this forum.


This has enabled her to create a distributed database of sources from which to cherry pick seemingly supportive statements made by people from apparently reputable backgrounds. She can (more-or-less) truthfully say that "people from her village, staff and students at her university, and members of the JREF, IIG and Winston/Salem Skeptics are all assisting with The Claim™"

As long as nobody compares notes, she might get away with it. Oh, wait . . .

It's not really sensible if there is more information regarding this claim, but it is distributed amongst multiple PMs and seperate discussions.

Perhaps it makes perfect sense, depending on one's motives.

I find it amusing that we are barely even refering to proper independent testing any more as it has receded to such an unlikely proposition.

The sub-plot is much more interesting and has better evidence.

 

[Uncayimmy]

This is a minor picking of nits, but I believe that her use of appendages here does not include the obvious things like arms and legs. I think she is using the term to mean things like appendixes or some such. One of those language use things.

From her IIG protocol (her comments in red).

a. “Ailments or conditions” also includes missing parts such as kidneys, tonsils, and appendixes, and any part of the anatomy that has been altered such as (but not limited to) artificial hips and knees, or the presence of pins, rods, screws, etc. With regard to this point, I can only agree with missing arm(s), hand(s), leg(s) or foot(feet). Not missing fingers or toes, missing tonsils, or pins, rods, screws. Please provide me with a comprehensive list of possible missing parts and I will let you know with each one whether I can agree to it or not.

Diabetes would be an interesting test, though, as long as the person was, say, a Type I diabetic, which would not have any externally obvious signs, for the most part, if the subjects are chosen carefully. Or a test with both Type I and Type II diabetics, all looking to be in a similar health and body weight / size, and see if she can tell them apart, which she should be able to if her alleged abilities are valid.

She actually claimed to be able to detect that someone was pre-diabetic. She could detect the precursors. And with her vibrational algebra, well, watch out world!

The problem here as I keep bringing up (it gets lost in the Walls o' Words and tangents) is that she does not have any semblance of a consistent claim. People keep trying to logically deduce a claim based on her explanations of what she sees and how it works, but that's a fool's errand.

From the very beginning she has said in effect, "My claim is that I can detect an unknown number of ailments since I am constantly discovering new ones. Of those ailments I have already detected I cannot guarantee that I can detect them in anyone else. I have no idea how many ailments I have failed to detect and do not wish to be judged on failing to detect something. "

"Basically, I want to look at a bunch of people and pick the ones in which I can detect something. I want my accuracy to be determined on just the things I detect in each particular given person. If other people in my selected group have that same ailment and I fail to detect it, that doesn't count against me."

Do you see why the IIG could never come up with a protocol (bless their hearts, as Anita would condescendingly say)?

 

[Akhenaten]

So I have to wonder why she would think it's a good idea to link back to these threads? If it were me, I'd just start over and join some woo-woo boards.

My take, and you've touched on it before ie. "she behaves as if we're not really even here".

Why not link back to the threads...she has summarily dismissed EVERYTHING anyone has brought up; she feels she is clearly in control and winning the battle (so to speak).

Perhaps the things we say here are subject to The Perceptions™. Anita can see inside our words and discern their true meaning. This ability has not been falsified and therefore cannot be discounted as warranting further investigation.

 

[Locknar]

Perhaps the things we say here are subject to The Perceptions™. Anita can see inside our words and discern their true meaning. This ability has not been falsified and therefore cannot be discounted as warranting further investigation.

Doh!

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

From her IIG protocol (her comments in red).

a. “Ailments or conditions” also includes missing parts such as kidneys, tonsils, and appendixes, and any part of the anatomy that has been altered such as (but not limited to) artificial hips and knees, or the presence of pins, rods, screws, etc. With regard to this point, I can only agree with missing arm(s), hand(s), leg(s) or foot(feet). Not missing fingers or toes, missing tonsils, or pins, rods, screws. Please provide me with a comprehensive list of possible missing parts and I will let you know with each one whether I can agree to it or not.

I stand corrected. I was not aware of this tidbit of information. That changes everything.

From the very beginning she has said in effect, "My claim is that I can detect an unknown number of ailments since I am constantly discovering new ones. Of those ailments I have already detected I cannot guarantee that I can detect them in anyone else. I have no idea how many ailments I have failed to detect and do not wish to be judged on failing to detect something. "

"Basically, I want to look at a bunch of people and pick the ones in which I can detect something. I want my accuracy to be determined on just the things I detect in each particular given person. If other people in my selected group have that same ailment and I fail to detect it, that doesn't count against me."

Do you see why the IIG could never come up with a protocol (bless their hearts, as Anita would condescendingly say)?

So basically when a cold read works, she is right, and when it doesn't, it doesn't count. Typical.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

Perhaps the things we say here are subject to The Perceptions™. Anita can see inside our words and discern their true meaning. This ability has not been falsified and therefore cannot be discounted as warranting further investigation.

Brilliant!! That was a perfect VfFism! You must be channelling her. Or is she sending vibrational signals to you?

 

[desertgal]

So there are no skeptics definitely involved as of yet?

Do you intend to use three skeptics or do you only need one for your study?
Does the skeptic group view this as a proper trial or do they view it just as a 'study', without weight in terms of demonstrating pranormal ability.


My understanding was that they view it as a "study".

Dr. Carlson's Post: I think it's unrealistic to expect much from this meeting.

VfF attended both the dinner and talk afterwards. I gave the talk, and she listened and asked one question. During dinner (which I only half attended) and after the talk, there was some discussion of a possible test. My experience is that you don't want to perform a test before you have it set up.

She basically said that she is only interested in doing medically related tests, i.e., not chemical tests. I brought up the possibility of vasectomies (because of this discussion), and she said that because she has only ONCE detected a vasectomy, she is not prepared, at present, to perform a test based on this. Think about it - if she has looked at thousands of people over time, and only once seen a vasectomy, think of the sample size we would need to get a statistically significant number of vasectomies that she could see.

In the end, we were stuck, in that there is no particular medical condition that she claims to be able to detect with sufficient reliability to test her abilities. She acknowledges the necessity of her finding such conditions. We all agreed on some of the difficulties - you need to find conditions that are commonplace, not detectable by ordinary means, and definitively confirmable or falsifiable. We'd also have to find a lot of volunteers (difficult) or procure the cooperation of medical professionals who could help us (more difficult). If I ended up acting as the primary organizer of the test, I might also have to address ethical/legal issues involving research involving humans.

VfF reaffirmed her belief that she will ultimately be able to come up with a testable claim, but at the moment, I think the ball is squarely in her court as we await her determining what aspects she feels sufficiently confident enough to allow testing.

Don't know if any of the skeptics from the society are participating in the study - I don't think it's gotten that far yet. Seems to me Anita was still typing up the protocol.

 

[Ashles]

From the very beginning she has said in effect, "My claim is that I can detect an unknown number of ailments since I am constantly discovering new ones. Of those ailments I have already detected I cannot guarantee that I can detect them in anyone else. I have no idea how many ailments I have failed to detect and do not wish to be judged on failing to detect something. "

"Basically, I want to look at a bunch of people and pick the ones in which I can detect something. I want my accuracy to be determined on just the things I detect in each particular given person. If other people in my selected group have that same ailment and I fail to detect it, that doesn't count against me."

Do you see why the IIG could never come up with a protocol (bless their hearts, as Anita would condescendingly say)?

Yes, I think Unca Yimmy has summed up this entire thread and claim superbly.

Proper independent testing actually cannot logically ever take place.
This is because Anita hasn't just shifted the goalposts of her claim, she has placed them into an amazing superposition whereby you can know what the criteria for success is not at that given moment, and what it was at one point but never enough to know what it actually is right now.
This thread is one of the most marvellous claimant sleight of hand demonstrations I have ever seen.

I can't believe it. All these pages and there is still no actual strict claim as to what can be done and what would constitute a fail.
It sort of seems like there is, but there actually isn't.

I can see why she stays well away from the chemical tests. That would all fall down in two seconds.

 

[Ashles]

(already summed up by Unca Yimmy)

 

[Locknar]

Oh dear lord...she is now selling "body art"; ie. paintings of what she "sees". Can QVC be far behind?