Vision From Feeling

[Ashles]

Bolding mine. This states that, If you detect a problem which the subject has categorically stated that they do not have, you will count it as a hit.

I'm just trying to clarfiy that (I am assuming that a 0% Hit would be a miss).

Anita has stated that she views her analysis system to be flawed.

It does, of course raise some issues with how she intends to analyse her own studies, but that depends if she intends this study to have weight either way, which it appears she does not.
However it does lead to further questions about how she intends to learn information about specific ailments.
I'll get to those questions in a bit.

This is all good though. She has responded and provided a weighting system (albeit not the one I asked) to her possible answers.
This is a starting point.

 

[Coveredinbeeees]

Hi Ashles,

Yeah, my post was made redundant even as I was writing it. I need to just write the things and not get caught up in actual work.

I'm not sure that I'd call the weighting system "a start." It could have been used to answer your request but it lacks the punchline. i.e. how much can subject and viewer answers differ before a miss is called.

From the Wayne reading we might surmise that subject answer N / viewer answer 2 counts as a hit. Of course, she didn't seem to have a zero on the scale back then.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Everyone, if I've avoided some questions posted here for me then I apologize, I am unable to read all posts or read as carefully as I have in the past and also have a limited time now to spend here. If you feel that I have avoided a valuable question and you would like to see it answered you may also e-mail it to me (find my e-mail address at my webpage at www.visionfromfeeling.com).

Ashles:

Also, Anita, do you think it might be worth looking at performing this test entirely at the FACT skeptics meeting? They have a controllable environment where permission will not be an issue.

Thank you Ashles for staying on topic. It is very important now that I am back to school. Yes as long as we can get the volunteers to go there and as long as we receive permission from Jim the organizer of FACT. Then I would be happy to.

I reckon we can have a test performed within three weeks from now if you accept some suggestions and recommendations. How does that sound?

That sounds very good!

UncaYimmy:

What *specifically* did you tell them and what *specifically* did they say in response? I posted a link to the park regulations. There is nothing there that says you cannot do it. Nothing. You said the person on the phone said that it seemed to be okay. Why did you even send the letter in the first place?

Good questions and I hope to receive some input from the others as well as to whether I maybe could have presented it differently or perhaps designed the study differently in order to better obtain permission for a location. Phew, I just typed up a lot of recent material, here is a link to a page where I post the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation. That way you can see what was said rather than read my description of it. This should answer your question of "what *specifically* did they say in response?". I sent them the letter and written material since I was asked to provide a more detailed description of what was intended with the study.

*Note that I made the e-mail correspondence available only by assuming that the replies from Park and Recreation represent the opinions of a governmental department and not personal opinions of an individual and that therefore it should be possible to make it available.

Who are your volunteers? Are they skeptics or friends? Define falsify.

When I say "volunteers" I refer to the people I look at and try to perceive medical information from. The study in general would have random people from the public as the volunteers. The study procedure is now pretty much complete. Complete in that I feel ready to put it to use, while I allow for continuous improvements to the study design that would benefit any additional study in the future. With this said I am finally prepared to have the local skeptics be the volunteers as well.

On the other hand if you are referring to what I call "participants", participants are those four or more who deal with some of the practical assignments of the study such as holding on the the filled in health forms. Six of the local skeptics have expressed interest in participating so there is hopefully no need for me to engage any of my friends as participants in the study, as that would significantly reduce the credibility of the study.

ETA: On the other hand, being a scientist science student, I would never engage any of my friends as participants in the study as this is (intended as) a scientific investigation. If there were a shortage of participants I would then perhaps approach my own university or other universities and engage students of science, psychology, or something else that is relevant and who I am not acquainted with. That is one option of hopefully credible participants, and they might enjoy the exercise of a paranormal investigation.

How long do you plan for it to take?

How long I plan for it to take? I plan that I and the participants decide on when and where and we stay for as long as we are comfortable with and decide there and then when to finish up for the day. I envision four hours in one day?

Have these people reviewed the protocol and questionnaire?

I have asked the six skeptics to review the study material and have not yet received a reply as to whether they are ok with it. If the skeptics want changes to be made to any of the study procedure, health form, or other material then changes can be made to implement those suggestions.

How do you plan to evaluate the results?

My intents with the study are mostly on the conceptual level, to get a rough estimate of what is going on. Of course I intend the study to be able to falsify the paranormal claim, if we observe a significant low correlation between the health of persons as perceived by me and as perceived by themselves. The column that asks for most of the ailments when they were last experienced is intended entirely for educational purposes so that I can see whether I appear to perceive recent ailments only or how far back the perceptions might be able to reach. [This point requires some clarification. I do not claim to see into the past but with this I referred to how recent the ailment must be or whether I can detect some of the lingering or milder symptoms, of an ailment that is not current at the time.] The extent column aids to make the extent of correlation even more specific, and again is primarily designed for study purposes and is not a test.

Define falsify.

I consider the paranormal claim to be falsified if the study reveals significant low correlation between the perception of health made by me and that made by the volunteers. I don't quite know what that would look like but I expect that if there is no ability of any kind what so ever in accurately perceiving health information from just by looking at people, then this can become apparent in the study. Of course a non-ability might slip through and have to be caught at a later stage. And, falsify is when it is concluded that there is no hopes for a paranormal ability and that terminates this investigation and the main objective of this investigation has been reached, that is, to find out what the perceptions are or are not.

 

[Ashles]

Phew, I just typed up a lot of recent material, here is a link to a page where I post the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation. That way you can see what was said rather than read my description of it. This should answer your question of "what *specifically* did they say in response?". I sent them the letter and written material since I was asked to provide a more detailed description of what was intended with the study.

Well it is very clear why you were refused. Had you let us assist you in writing the letter you probably would not have been.

Adding information about possible harm to people was a very silly thing to do, especially as the whole study had already been designed to prevent this from happening. They did not need to be informed of that at all and it would only have caused them concerns when none necessary.
They simply do not require this level of detail. They only need to know what you are intending to do - have people fill out an anonymous health questionnaire. Which you could simply have done anyway without all the permission business. The absolute very worst that could feasibly have happened (and I consider it very unlikely anyway) is a park official or policeman asking if you had a permit and when you said no they say you needed one so come back when you have one. That's it. As it is all this permission business has done is delay testing again.

Anyway the logical first step is with the skeptics in their room.
And I don't think you need worry about getting permission from Jim.

Let's start working on that right now. Are you agreed in working towards some form of study with Jim and his FACT group? Because we should be able to get all the details worked out on this thread before we hit any more stumbling blocks.

 

[Akhenaten]

Skeptic 1: "What day is it?"

Volunteer: "Wednesday."

Claimant: "Sunday."

Skeptic 2: "Actually it's Friday."

Volunteer: "Is it?"

Skeptic 2 hurries away. Shortly, Skeptic 3 arrives from Location 2​

Skeptic 3: "Skeptic 2 said to show you this . . ."

Skeptic 3 hands Claimant copy of a Parks and Recreation Permit clearly showing it to be Friday​

Claimant: "That's irrelevant, I'm corrrect anyway."

Skeptic 1: "What . . ?"

Claimant: Of course. If I say the same day as the volunteer, then that is 100%. Plus or minus one day is 75%, plus or minus two days is 50% and plus or minus three days is 25%. So Sunday is a hit, even though the volunteer is lying and probably delusional about it being Wednesday. Therefore we cannot conclude that a non-ability of knowing what day it is has been falsified, and so I proceed to a further study."

Skeptic 3: "What do we do now?"

Skeptic 1: "Back away slowly. I'll call Skeptic 4 and tell him he should get to safety with Skeptic 2 and we'll meet up later."

Volunteer: "I need to go to the bathroom."

 

[Ashles]

I don't quite know what that would look like but I expect that if there is no ability of any kind what so ever in accurately perceiving health information just by looking at people, then this can become apparent in the study.

As your description of the study stands at the moment this cannot happen.

Unless you describe some scenario or level of results that you consider demonstrates a non-ability then, after the study has been run, no set of results will fulfil this.

To be honest you should simply remove the falsification goal from the objectives from this study because there is no way it can, as described, be falsified.

Scientists (and science students) do not set up experiments that have a proposed goal to potentially falsify a hypothesis and then state the falsification position is essentially "we'l know it when we see it."
Much more sensible to leave it that this study is solely for you to learn more about your ability with no intent at this stage to falsify.

That is simple enough - it only involves removing one of the stated goals.

A little more difficult to ignore is the main other aim of the study - to learn more abut your claimed ability.
How?
What tolerance do you place on specific ailments? What level of succes/failure do you consider significant?

You really do need to place more information as to what specifically you are looking for and what degree of success (as a percentage if you like) would lead you to assume that a specific ailment is more suited to analysis by your ability than another.

If you cannot do this then it becomes hard to know what you are expecting to learn from this study and how you are measuring anything.

Is it simply that whichever ailments have the highest degree of success will be assumed to be the most suitable for your ability?
Because that doesn't really work. In any scenario where multiple choices are available even totally random selection of choices will probably result in one being represented at a higher frequency of occurance than the others.
But this doesn't necessarily mean anything. To draw conclusions just from that would be like assuming that because the Number 9 has occured most regularly in the national lottery that there is a reason for it.

You need to have some way of distinguishing actual positive results from the simply random deviations chance can throw up.You should do this by Specifying what you are looking for before the study.

Simply analysing a set of results by criteria you only create and describe after receiving the results is of no use, and, as has been explained many times on this thread, may well be where you have been going wrong in your previous instances where you have described positive results.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita, it is painfully obvious why you were "refused" by the park people - you didn't listen to us. From their perspective nobody asks "permission" to use the park unless there's some reason to be asking. I don't ask if I can go play a game of football or have a picnic. I don't ask if I can sit there and read a book or get together with a group of friends and play a song. I just show up. You gave them far, far too much detail and made it sound like some big production. But most importantly they figured if you were asking, then you must have a reason to ask.

But the thing is, they DID NOT REFUSE YOU. They told you that they would not reserve open space for you or let you set up a booth. You asked for neither, but by making such a production out of it, they assumed that's what you wanted. You wrote a novel with most irrelevant detail. It's no wonder they were confused.

They didn't say you couldn't just show up and do it. And they told you that you could reserve a room or a shelter to do it. All you have to do is ask. That's what we parents do when we want to host a birthday party for our kids. We don't ask permission with a novel about how old our kid is, the type of cake, etc - we just reserve the space so nobody else can use it at that time.

Thus, it is entirely incorrect for you to say that you cannot do it in the park. You can. They said you could.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...I consider the paranormal claim to be falsified if the study reveals significant low correlation between the perception of health made by me and that made by the volunteers...

You never learn. There is no such thing as a "significant low correlation". There are significant correlations (either positive or negative) and non-significant correlations. A non-significant correlation means that any relationship between two variables can reasonably be attributed to chance.

 

[Locknar]

Good questions and I hope to receive some input from the others as well as to whether I maybe could have presented it differently or perhaps designed the study differently in order to better obtain permission for a location. Phew, I just typed up a lot of recent material, here is a link to a page where I post the e-mail correspondence between me and Park and Recreation. That way you can see what was said rather than read my description of it. This should answer your question of "what *specifically* did they say in response?". I sent them the letter and written material since I was asked to provide a more detailed description of what was intended with the study.

*Note that I made the e-mail correspondence available only by assuming that the replies from Park and Recreation represent the opinions of a governmental department and not personal opinions of an individual and that therefore it should be possible to make it available.

Well, I stand corrected as it appears you did in fact contact them...though they did not refuse you as their reply made it clear you could reserve space.

As to your "note"; you are correct.

 

[Hokulele]

<snip>

Skeptic 3: "What do we do now?"

Skeptic 1: "Back away slowly. I'll call Skeptic 4 and tell him he should get to safety with Skeptic 2 and we'll meet up later."

Volunteer: "I need to go to the bathroom."

Claimant: I knew you had to go to the bathroom, I just didn't think it significant enough to mention.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Sorry everyone but not only am I not answering all questions and comments, I am even skipping posts and not reading everything! There simply isn't enough time! *I can only dream about the amazing posts that I am missing out on.* One day I will come back here and read everything and regret that I couldn't respond to certain things back when!

Prometheus:
I spent a whole minute trying to wipe off that bug off the screen with my finger.

LibraryLady:
Thank you. Couldn't have done that myself.

Ashles:

Please describe in as much detail as necessary what results would lead you to conclude your claim had been falsified at this stage.

It is difficult to say at this point what kind of study results would conclude that there is no ability of accurately perceiving health information. Keep in mind that even if I appear to have an ability of accurately perceiving health information this might be a subconscious skill of cold reading, so don't you skeptics panic if this investigation shows that there is interesting accuracy. I have not been verified incorrect a single time yet so I don't know. Is it ridiculous to say "let's just wait and see what happens?" Perhaps I should discuss this with Dr. Eric Carlson. He is a brilliant scientist and perhaps it is something I as the claimant am unable to decide on myself. It is a difficult question, Ashles! Do you have a suggestion? Please suggest?

Miss Kitt:

Anita -- This (your comment above) is an important piece of information. You now know that the level of vividness with which you experience associations to stimulus is much higher than that of other people. Have you thought of how to determine the way(s) in which your medical Perceptions differ from those associations? Could the same neurological / psychological mechanism that makes you re-experience the taste of fried chicken when you look at some be involved in your Perceptions? Or, to put it differently, how can you test the difference between a triggered vivid association, and a Perception? Put your science-student hat on and figure out that aspect of Control versus Test.

With perception you mean an actual reality based experience, and with triggered vivid association you mean a subjective experience, right? Well this could possibly be established with the study and tests to see what the correlation between my perception of a person's health is with the perceptions that the persons have of their health.

UncaYimmy:

Anita, can you see this? If so, will you acknowledge that in the excitement of doing a reading that you could, without realizing it, be turning little guesses into big hits?

Certainly. But in the reading with Wayne I concluded that I sensed a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent, and that I sensed the adam's apple which was also to an insignificant extent, and I stated my conclusion of the reading clearly to Wayne and Dr. Carlson and the others at the skeptics meeting that I found nothing wrong with the person.

Jim, can you see this? If so, will you acknowledge that in the excitement of analyzing a claimant's reading that you could, without realizing it, be turning little hopes of finding something wrong with the reading into big inaccuracies that never took place? Hm? Back at ya guys.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
Certainly. But in the reading with Wayne I concluded that I sensed a tired left shoulder to an insignificant extent, and that I sensed the adam's apple which was also to an insignificant extent, and I stated my conclusion of the reading clearly to Wayne and Dr. Carlson and the others at the skeptics meeting that I found nothing wrong with the person.

How many times are you going to repeat that story?

The answer I was hoping for was, "Yes, I understand that. Therefore, in the future I will take your advice and not mention things not worth mentioning. And I understand in this case it is impossible to know if I was fishing or not, so we'll just drop it rather than tell you for the umpteenth time that when I told Wayne and Dr. Carlson, wrote about here, and wrote about it on my website that I really didn't find it worth mentioning."

If you want to copy and paste that, fine. If you want to put it into your own words, fine. But please say something that tells us you won't do that again.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

GeeMack:

Then you somehow worded your request wrongly. I've done some amount of studying on this sort of thing because I'm a sometimes street entertainer. What you're asking to do is protected under the free speech and peaceable assembly laws, the First Amendment to our US Constitution. You somehow set yourself up to be denied, Anita, again, because you do not want to actually find out that you're a miserable failure.

Please see this document where I list the e-mail correspondence that took place between me and Park and Recreation. Please tell me how I worded it wrong? And how I should have worded it? Should I send another e-mail, and then what would it say? (Thank you. I really really want to have the study!)

Our First Amendment protects your right to speak freely and peaceably assemble in a situation like this, too.

Are you sure? So if I go to a public street anyway, and do this, no one is going to come to stop me and get me in trouble? Are you sure about this? *I just don't want to break the law.*

No. Not really. You're a liar. And if you don't know you are, if you truly don't realize you're a liar, then it goes back to the likelihood that you have some sort of debilitating mental health problem.

I am not a liar! I really don't want to conduct a study that would harm volunteers or break the law! I would rather be called a liar or delusional but I will not harm anyone with this study and I will not break the law. So there.

You didn't try. You have, and you'll continue to pretend, build your own roadblocks, stall, lie, and otherwise prevent any effective study or test from ever being conducted because you do not want to actually find out that you're a miserable failure.

I am working as fast as I can. I just won't break the law or conduct a study that turns out having been harmful to the volunteers. I don't care what you say, my morals are pretty high.

skeen:

After-all, we don't know how you worded your request; and for the park, no request was necessary at all.

See this document and tell me what you think. Are you sure that I could have just gone to a park and done this?

The notion that you might be sent home is laughable. You're not even trying to fool us, are you? You're trying to fool yourself.

Well I was told by the American Embassy that if I break any laws while I'm here I'd be sent back home and without permission to return. Just looking out for my career, that's all.

You woo's are all the same, it's so frustrating. And I know you're a liar, because you lied in the synesthesia test. You do not have synesthesia. You are so crazy it's not even funny.

The synesthesia test showed that I seem to have at least one form of synesthesia. Also it did not test for the main types of association I experience, which involves a sense of character, vibration, or shape to things, and also with the music and color association I was unable to answer that I perceive sounds in two colors, not one color. I did not "lie in the synesthesia test". The fact that you think so shows that you are seriously deluded about reality? You guys have consistently believed in things about me that aren't true. That I'm not from Sweden, that I'm not studying two B.S. degrees at the same time, that people who know me would be *really impressed* by the apparent accuracy in my perceptions, that I reported an ailment of the throat in my reading with Wayne, and all kinds of delusional hallucinations that you guys have. You guys should really seek help.

And to add, this study is not even a good idea! Why are you doing a fully-fledged study? This is mental.

I would think it is a good idea for you to stop trying to use the concept of mental disorder as a means of trying to strengthen your statements. To call a study "mental" is a little bit pathetic on your part. Besides I was suggested to have the study by the local skeptics group. The study is intended to form a better definition of the paranormal claim, and to possibly falsify a non-ability. There is nothing mental about doing that.

If you're so sure you have this ability, merely demonstrate it to people. That's all you need to do to become a media sensation almost overnight! Your shield of "morality" is bogus - no-one buys it.

If I have this ability, it will be demonstrated on the study. Although then we need a test after that which disallows any forms of cold reading as the source of the accurate information.

There is something in your brain that is preventing you from finding out the truth. This is why I tend to believe you have serious psychological issues. Even if you're lying, that in itself would imply a serious psychological condition considering all the trouble you have gone through.

I resent that, since your comment is merely based on impatience. The fact that there are still no results says nothing about my mental health. You're just impatient because progress has been slow.

So, either way, you need some help. And don't even bother with the apologetics - you are as significant as the second coming of Jesus (for Christians) if what you're saying is true. But you know it's not - somewhere, deep down at least, you know you're a little girl who wants attention, and wants to feel special.

I don't know that it isn't true. I've had compelling experiences in the past and that is why I am having this study. The fact that you yet again believe in incorrect assumptions shows that you, indeed, are delusional?

You have wasted so many peoples time, and you have ruined any possible reputation you might have had in the Scientific field (though, you cannot even think rationally so I highly doubt you would have had any chance there anyway). I'm just disgusted.

I resent that. I will be a brilliant scientist and the fact that I've conducted a scientific investigation into an interesting experience, even if an unconventional subject, does not take away from my skills as a scientist. Besides I am one of those few who actually want to touch unconventional research topics. Like the claim made my Mr. Emoto and the storing of emotions and thoughts in water crystal structure. Since his claim appears to not have been scientifically verified, I wrote to him and his associates and introduced myself as an undergraduate student in chemistry and optical physics who is specializing in the interaction between light and matter mainly for medical applications, and asked whether they would be interested in collaborating with me conducting an experiment to try to reproduce their results. I would of course have published any results that I have in an objective manner concluding perhaps that I was not able to produce any of the claimed results, or that I observed their claimed results to some extent, or perhaps that my results would coincide with theirs, but I received no reply back (surprise) and have not done this project. I still might in the future so keep an eye out for when I start working on some of my research ideas. (The research ideas and inventions that I am working on on my own time, at home, and with my own resources do not necessarily represent my university.)

Most scientists and science students I spoke to about Mr. Emoto's claim were appalled by such an unconventional and "clearly nonsensical" claim without really being certain that the claim would be false, whereas I am willing to spend some of my time as a scientist to actually show that such a claim is not possible and to then perhaps come up with a reason as to why before concluding about it.

In my teens I was interested in some of the concepts of New Age or "pseudoscience" and am now getting a real education in conventional science. Some pseudoscientific claims are not touched by scientists. I intend to be one of the brave scientists who is willing to put her reputation in line to look into unconventional claims or hypotheses that relate to my field of study. If a woo comes up with some strange claims about some electronic instrument or healing powers then I can be one to objectively consider their claim and perhaps even devote some of my own spare time and resources to find a way to prove and explain why their claims are flawed. If my involvement in this seems to hurt my reputation to some, then so be it. I think it strengthens me as a scientist, and strengthens science as a whole. Why simply tell a paranormal claimant that they are wrong, when it is possible to look into it, to dedicate some of your time and expertise, and show them why it doesn't work? I will be one of those persons.

I seriously doubt that this paranormal investigation would hurt my reputation or career. This is an interesting exercise of the scientific method on a high school- or undergraduate level. I might even put it on my resume. And who knows, after I falsify my claim I might turn into a skeptic who tests paranormal claimants and claims, and that is something to put on a resume.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Old man:

Everybody is going to select head, throat, upper and lower abdomen, and ‘stomach’ pain.

Yeah I know. That is why the extent and when columns are there. If you say that you have pain in your head now or past week and that it was a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 then that is a significant pain that according to my claim I should be able to detect. If instead you say that you had pain in your head a year ago and that it was a 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 then if I miss it I couldn't care less. That is why the extent and when columns are necessary. Everyone's had stomach pain perhaps, but if you had it recently and it was pretty significant, then it becomes an ailment that I should be able to detect. If you had stomach pain a month ago and it was a 1 then if I do not detect that then it is ok. Something like that. It is a study not a test so a second study, or a test, will be more refined. Good point though, glad you asked.

I by the way checked 10 things, and for those that had an extent associated with the question were a 1 or a 2. Phew. Healthy. But thank you, you bring up an excellent point. The questions relating to pain should probably not ask for pain that occurred a year ago or longer. I might change that for the third version of the health questionnaire! In that case, you will be mentioned on my webpage with a nice thank you!

Yes there are problems with the protocol. But it was first suggested to me to not include any questions about when or the extent of pain for instance, then that would have made it even harder to figure things out. I still think the extent and when are very good to have there.

!!11!!eleventy!!1!

What? ... #1608 has it too, by Akhenaten who said "A severed diaphragm ?!eleven?!" What on earth does that mean?

Locknar:

I don't believe you contacted either the mall or the public park. However, I'll focus solely on the public park.

Oh but I contacted both. The only way I can think of to prove it is if I gave you my e-mail username and password and you could go and see the e-mails there, since if I simply forward them to you you might say that I wrote them myself.

You've claimed you send them a letter...I assume you can post this, and the Park and Recreation Departments reply? From what you have described, IF you've done as claimed they have denied you rights as guaranteed under the Constitution and have a legal case against them.

Here. Go Locknar! Way to go!

Akhenaten:

It seems a convenient, student-friendly location and no permission will be required from Mecklenburg County to conduct activities there.

I would actually feel comfortable doing the study at my uni, however the college students are very healthy young people. If I could choose any place in the world for the study it would be at a hospital entrance or the entrance to Walgreens.

UncaYimmy:

If I say I have no pain in my right arm and you say that you think on a scale of 1 to 5 that my pain is at level 4, that counts as you having a hit of 20%? Did I read that correctly?

It sounds ridiculous, I know. I just don't know how to construct a point scale system for the study. Do you have any ideas?

Moochie:

Dear whoever you are, your plans look more and more like a gambler about to attempt to beat the "house." It's been tried before, and exposed before. What makes you think you'll succeed where all others have failed?

If there is no ability in accurately perceiving health information then I would be glad to have a study or a test to conclude that. I don't want to beat the house, since the house in this case is Science itself.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you feel that I have avoided a valuable question and you would like to see it answered you may also e-mail it to me (find my e-mail address at my webpage at www.visionfromfeeling.com).

So, we have to prove to you that our questions are valuable by asking a second time via personal e-mail? Nice try at taking control. It won't work. I think I can speak for just about everyone here that anybody still asking questions after 2,000 posts believes their questions to be valuable. I certainly don't waste my time posting trivial questions. It's insulting that you would imply otherwise.

You started this thing. Be an honorable person and see it through. You have asked for time from other people. They deserve to be treated with respect. How would you react if we told you to e-mail us if there are any "important" we should have answered for you and didn't.

When I say "volunteers" I refer to the people I look at and try to perceive medical information from. The study in general would have random people from the public as the volunteers. The study procedure is now pretty much complete. Complete in that I feel ready to put it to use, while I allow for continuous improvements to the study design that would benefit any additional study in the future. With this said I am finally prepared to have the local skeptics be the volunteers as well.

You quoted me out of context and failed to answer my questions. You said that all the arrangements were ready. Clearly they are not. There is a very clear pattern of stalling here.

* I told you from the very beginning that the mall would refuse. You repeatedly called me "brilliant" but you refused to believe me and put off contacting the mall.

* You said you wouldn't even consider an alternative location until the mall officially refused you. Why not have a back-up plan?

* I told you that you did not need permission from the park. You insisted on getting it anyway. They told you on the phone that it was okay, but you *still* sent them a letter, delaying it even further and increases the chances of them turning you away.

* It wasn't until Friday that you claimed the park "refused" you when in fact they said it was okay - they just wouldn't reserve open space or let you set up a booth. They flat out told you could reserve pavilion space to do it.

* Your skeptics who "expressed interest" haven't even been shown the protocol, much less agreed to it.

* As of Friday you claimed to be "all set" yet you haven't even given your assistants a time or place.

* You haven't even settled on a location, much less scoped it out in regards to the volume of people who come through.

There was no way it could have happened this weekend. It was, as we all expected, for show.

If there were a shortage of participants I would then perhaps approach my own university or other universities and engage students of science, psychology, or something else that is relevant and who I am not acquainted with. That is one option of hopefully credible participants, and they might enjoy the exercise of a paranormal investigation.

What? Now you are willing to contact your university? Why wait, Anita? Contact them now. Don't wait for people to drop out at the last minute. If six skeptics "expressed interest" then shoot for a dozen more people from school. Maybe then you'll actually get four who will help you. If you need four assistants, have five ready.

I am telling you this: People "express interest" all the time and don't actually follow throw. People say they will show, but then they don't.

Here's where you go: http://studentorgs.uncc.edu/
There are several academic organizations you can contact. DO NOT WAIT.

How long I plan for it to take? I plan that I and the participants decide on when and where and we stay for as long as we are comfortable with and decide there and then when to finish up for the day. I envision four hours in one day?

As I figured, you did not have all the arrangements made. With driving time, figure that's five hours. Make sure your volunteers are good with that.

I have asked the six skeptics to review the study material and have not yet received a reply as to whether they are ok with it.

As I figured, you did not have all the arrangements made. Have you invited them here to this forum? Have they replied at all?

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy:
It sounds ridiculous, I know. I just don't know how to construct a point scale system for the study. Do you have any ideas?

Yes. Use the protocol and questionnaire I wrote back when I was brilliant. Do not alter them. Report the raw data here.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

Thank you for respononse.

Is that like a response-nonsense?

Before I make any coments about your analysis system, surely you must have some specific idea of what would constitute falsification.

Well, if I make a single one particular claimed perception that strongly disagrees with the verified health of a person then that alone is reason to make me doubt the claim. If I make several inaccurate perceptions then each would add to my doubts and eventually I would realize that there is no ability. I really need someone else to define when the claim would be falsified by the study, as I have no clear answer. All I know is that the study should be able to falsify a non-ability whether I have a clear idea of what that would require, or not. *unscientific*

Also for a specific ailment what performace do you consider non-significant?
At the moment your response seems to indicate you only consider a Volunteer 5, Anita N reponse or a Volunteer N, Anita 5 response entirely non-significant?
Is that correct?

I just don't know at this point. I really need to discuss this with others.

Coveredinbeeees:

Unless you are saying that every possible combination counts as a hit in which case how could a non ability ever be revealed?

Well, if for every discrepancy of one units on the 0 to 5 scale between perception of health by me and perception of health by the volunteers is a subtraction of 20% of the point for that particular question (for those that are associated with an extent, such as pain), then it would reduce from the total score at the end and perhaps we could say that I need 80% of the highest possible total score in order to proceed in this investigation? I'm not sure how to go about in terms of a quantitative interpretation of results. I intended the study mainly for conceptual conclusions.

When I said this,

Volunteer: N Anita: 5
Analysis: 0% H

Coveredinbeeees said this,

Bolding mine. This states that, If you detect a problem which the subject has categorically stated that they do not have, you will count it as a hit.

No. What I said was that this would be a case of 0% hit and 100% miss.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

Anita, I don't understand how to fill out your form when it comes to the time periods.

I am nauseous right now. What do I circle?
Now
Past Week
Month
Year
Longer

I haven't specified this yet in the information page that is given to the volunteers. If you are experiencing the ailment now you circle now since you circle when you experienced the ailment most recently.

Suppose I was nauseous three days ago, six months ago and two years ago. What should I circle?
Now
Past Week
Month
Year
Longer

You would circle past week as the most recent when you experienced it. Don't forget to circle your perception of the extent of the ailment too.

Then, of course, how does this tie into how you judge the results? For example, if you say I am nauseous now, what happens if I say I was nauseous in the past year? Is that a hit? What, if anything, would that tell you about your abilities?

Well, you see, some of these complications arise since I have designed and intended the study in terms of a study whereas you are trying to interpret it as a test. I just want to see what kind of correlation there is or isn't and then we can go from there. I hate to say it but I intend to take the photocopies of the health forms (since the FACT skeptics will get to keep the originals) and to sit down and look at the correlation and try to get estimates and ideas about it, and this involves analyzing each case individually as well as trying to get a collective idea of the results. Such is a study, I suppose. If I thought that a person had nausea currently but they don't then I would personally count that as a definite miss.

How about if you circle Month and I circle Now, Past Week, Year, and Longer? What does that mean? What does that tell you?

I have no idea what that would mean.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles:

It does, of course raise some issues with how she intends to analyse her own studies, but that depends if she intends this study to have weight either way, which it appears she does not.

The study can falsify the claim but the study can not prove the claim. The study will either falsify the claim and terminate the investigation or the study will allow for the claim to proceed toward a second and more refined study or a test. I suppose there is no definite line on the correlation scale at which the claim would be immediately falsified, perhaps it is a gradual line from black to white with a large grey area in between that is difficult to interpret exactly. *unscientific*

Well it is very clear why you were refused. Had you let us assist you in writing the letter you probably would not have been.

If I write them again what should that letter say? Or have I done irreparable damage.

Which you could simply have done anyway without all the permission business.

Are you sure about that?

Anyway the logical first step is with the skeptics in their room.
And I don't think you need worry about getting permission from Jim.

Nope. I already wrote to Jim and the FACT group and we are setting up an extra meeting for the study possibly for next weekend in which the skeptics will be the volunteers! Exciting!

To be honest you should simply remove the falsification goal from the objectives from this study because there is no way it can, as described, be falsified.

I simply will not remove the falsification objective. If there is no ability then it might be very clearly so on the study. I think the better thing to do is to work on establishing what falsifies the claim rather than to remove one of the more important objectives of the study.

Is it simply that whichever ailments have the highest degree of success will be assumed to be the most suitable for your ability?

Perhaps, then for test purposes we also need to consider finding ailments that can not be cold read under controlled test conditions.

Simply analysing a set of results by criteria you only create and describe after receiving the results is of no use

I need to think about how to define how the results of the study are interpreted. The problem is that as the claimant I can not define the rules of how to conclude on the results on my own.

Akhenaten:
#1985 Well ailments such as pain do occur on a scale of extent, whereas the day of the week or an appendectomy are strictly yes/no situations.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

UncaYimmy:

Anita, it is painfully obvious why you were "refused" by the park people - you didn't listen to us. From their perspective nobody asks "permission" to use the park unless there's some reason to be asking. I don't ask if I can go play a game of football or have a picnic. I don't ask if I can sit there and read a book or get together with a group of friends and play a song. I just show up. You gave them far, far too much detail and made it sound like some big production. But most importantly they figured if you were asking, then you must have a reason to ask.

But can you be sure that the study is permissible?

But the thing is, they DID NOT REFUSE YOU. They told you that they would not reserve open space for you or let you set up a booth. You asked for neither, but by making such a production out of it, they assumed that's what you wanted. You wrote a novel with most irrelevant detail. It's no wonder they were confused.

So should I write again and specify that it only takes up little space? The most recent e-mail from them seems to suggest that the study itself is permissible, so, we're all good to go?

Thus, it is entirely incorrect for you to say that you cannot do it in the park. You can. They said you could.

Are you sure about that? That would be wonderful.

Locknar:

Well, I stand corrected as it appears you did in fact contact them...though they did not refuse you as their reply made it clear you could reserve space.

I will write again and ask them to specify whether they intended that the study in itself is ok to be held in a public area of Charlotte and whether it was the reserving of space that was the problem. Since we do not need much space at all for the study.