Vision From Feeling

[Uncayimmy]

I'd rate them excellent. She has you by the nose.

If you mean that I consider her to be unreliable at best and mentally ill at worst and haven't dismissed the idea that she's a scammer, then, yes, she has me by the nose.

 

[tsig]

If you mean that I consider her to be unreliable at best and mentally ill at worst and haven't dismissed the idea that she's a scammer, then, yes, she has me by the nose.[/QUOTE/]

Maybe I was just trying to prove a point and didn't mean anything I said in that post.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I teach experimental psych and part of that is reteaching stat. However, I would not touch a clusterfork like Anita's Mess O' Data with a 3 meter pole. I believe it was Ashles who pointed out earlier that you have to plan out the whole study, including the appropriate stat, first.
Even my less than A average undergraduates manage to master that concept.
This whole "study" is a waste of time and cannot demonstrate anything of value.

Thanks, Jeff. I agree with you that what she has designed is a waste of time. I designed my version about as quickly as I could type and format because I wanted to post it in time for it to be brought to the first skeptics meeting (it was, but it was not used).

My goal was to make it as specific as I felt reasonable given the time constraints. For example, issues with each arm were broken down into joint pain (fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder) and muscle pain (shoulder, biceps, triceps, forearm). It was a yes/no proposition based on pain within the last 30 days. I figured even if somebody was stretching their arm like it was sore, it would still be pretty difficult to guess which of the 8 choices was the cause of the pain.

Likewise neck and back pain were broken down into direction of movement (three for neck, three for back) and muscle pain (neck, upper left, upper right, middle, lower, left hip, right hip). Thus while these types of pains might be noticeable to the observant (fidgeting, stretching), it would be more difficult (certainly not impossible) to guess the exact location out of 13 choices. Unless, of course, you had Vibrational Information™ at your disposal.

Any false positives would have been a step in the right direction. Had she used the form with Wayne, we would likely have had two false positives and no hits. At the worst it would have been 0 for 0.

Though I didn't crunch any numbers, I assumed that being this specific would result in relatively few check marks by most people. I based this on myself, someone who has a large number of aches and pains (comparison based on personal experience) as well as dental issues, vision issues, and a few surgeries. Even I would only check 13 out of nearly 100 choices.

I figured my form stood a good chance of revealing that something was not there providing she actually took some guesses. I doubt it would be good enough to prove something was there, but with Anita there is no need to prove that. She already has Apparent Accuracy™ sitting in the bank.

ETA: Her form allows for way too many check marks to be able to produce many false positives even if her guesses are totally random.

 

[tsig]

Thanks, Jeff. I agree with you that what she has designed is a waste of time. I designed my version about as quickly as I could type and format because I wanted to post it in time for it to be brought to the first skeptics meeting (it was, but it was not used).

My goal was to make it as specific as I felt reasonable given the time constraints. For example, issues with each arm were broken down into joint pain (fingers, wrist, elbow, shoulder) and muscle pain (shoulder, biceps, triceps, forearm). It was a yes/no proposition based on pain within the last 30 days. I figured even if somebody was stretching their arm like it was sore, it would still be pretty difficult to guess which of the 8 choices was the cause of the pain.

Likewise neck and back pain were broken down into direction of movement (three for neck, three for back) and muscle pain (neck, upper left, upper right, middle, lower, left hip, right hip). Thus while these types of pains might be noticeable to the observant (fidgeting, stretching), it would be more difficult (certainly not impossible) to guess the exact location out of 13 choices. Unless, of course, you had Vibrational Information™ at your disposal.

Any false positives would have been a step in the right direction. Had she used the form with Wayne, we would likely have had two false positives and no hits. At the worst it would have been 0 for 0.

Though I didn't crunch any numbers, I assumed that being this specific would result in relatively few check marks by most people. I based this on myself, someone who has a large number of aches and pains (comparison based on personal experience) as well as dental issues, vision issues, and a few surgeries. Even I would only check 13 out of nearly 100 choices.

I figured my form stood a good chance of revealing that something was not there providing she actually took some guesses. I doubt it would be good enough to prove something was there, but with Anita there is no need to prove that. She already has Apparent Accuracy™ sitting in the bank.

ETA: Her form allows for way too many check marks to be able to produce many false positives even if her guesses are totally random.

There is nothing to test it's all words. Acting like there is something there is pandering to ignorance.

This post is the word of god.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy
You have addressed me personally. First of all I have not linked to any of your posts, I have never addressed you personally and up until now I did not wish to do so.

Yes, I addressed you personally by quoting your message. That's customary. Was this a problem?

Secondly, you dont seem very happy that I have come into this thread and given my opinion.

Quite the contrary but irrelevant. We all make our points with the expectation that somebody is sure to disagree. All we can ask for is that our arguments are addressed rather than our personalities.

I am speaking from my own experience with scammers. I have been scammed in my business more than once. I was also employed by an Australian state government in the police department many years ago and so have had experience of other people's misfortune with scammers.

That's good to know. So when I say, "If Anita was a scammer, I would expect her to do X instead of Y" then you can say, "In a similar situation the scammer did X." In response I might say, "I don't think that's similar because <whatever>." Or perhaps I will say, "Interesting. I would not have expected that."

You are speaking from your experience with international students.

Only in the specific issue of providing an opinion regarding the possibility that Anita is lying about being an international student from Sweden.

I am the youngest of six children. My father, a CPA, owned several businesses over the years with both consumers and businesses as clients. He was also the CFO of a company that built shopping centers and office buildings and as such dealt with numerous types of businesses, many of them shady. Four of us have owned and operated businesses.

Two of us still do. My brother has owned an auto repair shop for 20 years. All of my clients are business owners, many of them in real estate (apartment building owners, mortgage brokers). I spent a year as a bill collector. I've been a landlord myself. My other brother has spent the last 20 years as the controller for three different non-profits, all of which have been politically based. He deals with politicians on a regular basis and has met at least a couple of presidents.

Starting when I was a kid, dinner conversation has centered around business and politics. To this day when we talk, it's about business. And when you're talking about construction, auto repair, landlords, and politicians, scam artists always come up.

Does that make me an expert on scammers? Nope, but it certainly makes me an experienced layman.

In one of my intial posts when I asked a question of another member you took it upon yourself to answer and say something to the effect that as far as you are concerned the matter was settled, even though you did not address what I was actually getting at - I can assure you it wasnt about whether Anita is Swedish or not. That is totally irrelevant to me.

I was responding to this:

Jonquill, I notice that Anita uses a lot of what I call "Americanisms" in her written speech, I thought it unusual for someone who has not been in the country a good while. An example of an "Americanism" is "you bet" along with a few others but of course I could be wrong.

Since you say that her being Swedish is irrelevant, then what is your point? You brought up a language issue. I responded to a language issue. If I missed the point, then please make it.

I respectfully suggest if you wish to learn more about scammers and people who claim to perform psychic surgery, that you do your own research instead of scoffing at what I am trying to say.

Obviously I do not know what it is you are trying to say since my response about "Americanisms" was off the mark.

If you have done research on scammers and psychic surgeons, then share what you have learned.

Finally I would have preferred to address you personally to thank you for the things I have learnt on this thread from yourself, as I said in my introductory post I do not possess much education and quite a lot of people here including Ashles have taught me a lot.

If you are under the impression that I care about your lack of education, you are mistaken. Just say what you have to say. Some will agree and others won't. Such is the makings of a lively discussion.

If you had a doctorate in some area, it would matter in the sense that if your facts seemed accurate, I probably wouldn't double-check them or ask for citations. As for your opinions, it would depend on whether your degree gave you some expertise on the subject. Even then I would expect you to defend your position just like I would expect anyone else (myself included) to do.

We are all entitled to our opinion and my opinion is that Anita is a future scammer of gullible woos. if you do not agree with my opinion then thats what makes it such an interesting world to live in - in my opinion of course.

I don't often use "in my opinion" because it's always my opinion. When I give facts, I usually give citations. I expect the same from others.

But let me ask you this about your opinion of Anita as a future scammer. What could she have done thus far or do in the future to a) convince you she's not a scammer and/or b)convince you she is delusional.

I have already pointed out several things, past and future, that would change my mind from delusional to scammer.

 

[tsig]

Yes, I addressed you personally by quoting your message. That's customary. Was this a problem?


Quite the contrary but irrelevant. We all make our points with the expectation that somebody is sure to disagree. All we can ask for is that our arguments are addressed rather than our personalities.


That's good to know. So when I say, "If Anita was a scammer, I would expect her to do X instead of Y" then you can say, "In a similar situation the scammer did X." In response I might say, "I don't think that's similar because <whatever>." Or perhaps I will say, "Interesting. I would not have expected that."


Only in the specific issue of providing an opinion regarding the possibility that Anita is lying about being an international student from Sweden.

I am the youngest of six children. My father, a CPA, owned several businesses over the years with both consumers and businesses as clients. He was also the CFO of a company that built shopping centers and office buildings and as such dealt with numerous types of businesses, many of them shady. Four of us have owned and operated businesses.

Two of us still do. My brother has owned an auto repair shop for 20 years. All of my clients are business owners, many of them in real estate (apartment building owners, mortgage brokers). I spent a year as a bill collector. I've been a landlord myself. My other brother has spent the last 20 years as the controller for three different non-profits, all of which have been politically based. He deals with politicians on a regular basis and has met at least a couple of presidents.

Starting when I was a kid, dinner conversation has centered around business and politics. To this day when we talk, it's about business. And when you're talking about construction, auto repair, landlords, and politicians, scam artists always come up.

Does that make me an expert on scammers? Nope, but it certainly makes me an experienced layman.


I was responding to this:

Since you say that her being Swedish is irrelevant, then what is your point? You brought up a language issue. I responded to a language issue. If I missed the point, then please make it.


Obviously I do not know what it is you are trying to say since my response about "Americanisms" was off the mark.

If you have done research on scammers and psychic surgeons, then share what you have learned.


If you are under the impression that I care about your lack of education, you are mistaken. Just say what you have to say. Some will agree and others won't. Such is the makings of a lively discussion.

If you had a doctorate in some area, it would matter in the sense that if your facts seemed accurate, I probably wouldn't double-check them or ask for citations. As for your opinions, it would depend on whether your degree gave you some expertise on the subject. Even then I would expect you to defend your position just like I would expect anyone else (myself included) to do.


I don't often use "in my opinion" because it's always my opinion. When I give facts, I usually give citations. I expect the same from others.

But let me ask you this about your opinion of Anita as a future scammer. What could she have done thus far or do in the future to a) convince you she's not a scammer and/or b)convince you she is delusional.

I have already pointed out several things, past and future, that would change my mind from delusional to scammer.

Your state of mind is not the point of this thread.

 

[tsig]

Yes, I addressed you personally by quoting your message. That's customary. Was this a problem?


Quite the contrary but irrelevant. We all make our points with the expectation that somebody is sure to disagree. All we can ask for is that our arguments are addressed rather than our personalities.


That's good to know. So when I say, "If Anita was a scammer, I would expect her to do X instead of Y" then you can say, "In a similar situation the scammer did X." In response I might say, "I don't think that's similar because <whatever>." Or perhaps I will say, "Interesting. I would not have expected that."


Only in the specific issue of providing an opinion regarding the possibility that Anita is lying about being an international student from Sweden.

I am the youngest of six children. My father, a CPA, owned several businesses over the years with both consumers and businesses as clients. He was also the CFO of a company that built shopping centers and office buildings and as such dealt with numerous types of businesses, many of them shady. Four of us have owned and operated businesses.

Two of us still do. My brother has owned an auto repair shop for 20 years. All of my clients are business owners, many of them in real estate (apartment building owners, mortgage brokers). I spent a year as a bill collector. I've been a landlord myself. My other brother has spent the last 20 years as the controller for three different non-profits, all of which have been politically based. He deals with politicians on a regular basis and has met at least a couple of presidents.

Starting when I was a kid, dinner conversation has centered around business and politics. To this day when we talk, it's about business. And when you're talking about construction, auto repair, landlords, and politicians, scam artists always come up.

Does that make me an expert on scammers? Nope, but it certainly makes me an experienced layman.


I was responding to this:

Since you say that her being Swedish is irrelevant, then what is your point? You brought up a language issue. I responded to a language issue. If I missed the point, then please make it.


Obviously I do not know what it is you are trying to say since my response about "Americanisms" was off the mark.

If you have done research on scammers and psychic surgeons, then share what you have learned.


If you are under the impression that I care about your lack of education, you are mistaken. Just say what you have to say. Some will agree and others won't. Such is the makings of a lively discussion.

If you had a doctorate in some area, it would matter in the sense that if your facts seemed accurate, I probably wouldn't double-check them or ask for citations. As for your opinions, it would depend on whether your degree gave you some expertise on the subject. Even then I would expect you to defend your position just like I would expect anyone else (myself included) to do.


I don't often use "in my opinion" because it's always my opinion. When I give facts, I usually give citations. I expect the same from others.

But let me ask you this about your opinion of Anita as a future scammer. What could she have done thus far or do in the future to a) convince you she's not a scammer and/or b)convince you she is delusional.

I have already pointed out several things, past and future, that would change my mind from delusional to scammer.[/QUOTE

nAda

 

[Farencue]

UncaYimmy
I think, as a new poster, I would prefer to let you be the self proclaimed expert on this thread.
Thankyou
Farencue

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anything Anita puts down as N, 1 or 2 will be omitted from the Hit, Miss analysis. Her marking 3 to a volunteer's 1 will be omitted.
If you mark down symptoms of something as 2 or higher and Anita marks it 3 or higher then, to be honest, I think it is fair enough to consider that a Hit within the parameters of this unofficial study.
If someone marks almost everything as 2 or higher then their form will skew the results. If someone has had pain of 2 or higher in all the places mentioned on the form then they really need to see a doctor.

Hmm...

Here's my first concern: There's absolutely no guidance on the Extent scale. Anybody who has tried to open a stubborn jar of jelly can attest to having level 1 pain in the hand/wrist sometime in their life. Anybody who has ever banged a knee on a coffee table in their life can check knee pain as a 1. Hell, that could be a 2 or a 3.

Even if you do give guidance, we're talking lifetimes here. I don't need to see a doctor just because I spent many years as an athlete and training with weights and thus felt level 2 pain or higher in just about every muscle and joint in my body at some point.

I can easily mark 90% of those ailments as a 2 or higher if I consider my entire lifetime, which is what the form asks. Who has never puked or had the runs? Who has never had a bad headache? Sprained an ankle or knee? Went hiking and got sore legs?

Anyway, in a real test this level of freedom of interpretation would not be allowed. This isn't a test and, to be honest, the number of Hits here are only peripherally relevant.

Then what is at the center of relevance? I'm missing it.

If we can get Anita to actually perform this study/test with the skeptics, we're only going to get one shot. Based on its current design, I don't see how see how my toddler could do worse than 50% accuracy. If that happens, we've only given her delusions (or scam) legitimacy.

The main point of my rather arbitrary figures is that it introduces a pre-agreed point of possible falsification which, as far as I can tell, has been completely absent in the 12 years Anita claims to have had this 'ability'.
It is simply a start point - an introduction to the concept of falsification, rather than anything I feel has any particular importance as a specific statistical cut-off point.

Agreeing that a percentage that a doctor couldn't possibly achieve if he was trying to get everything wrong is not productive. Of course she will agree to that.

If that happens, she'll have apparent accuracy and the credibility of the skeptics who were unable to falsify her claim of ESP.

It could easily be argued to alter the weightings or the ratio to be stricter on Anita (and more in line with real statistical analysis) but I feel that would lead Anita to reject it and, within this study, doesn't, inmy opinion, serve a particular purpose other than to simply remove the possibilty of falsification at this stage.

With the next stage being what?

Also if Anita rejected this definition of falsification then it is clear she would reject anything and therefore is not genuinely interested in having any sort of falsification scenario.

So, you're saying that getting Anita to agree to a falsification scenario that is nearly impossible to attain is a step in the right direction? And if she does the study, then what?

The study, if it goes ahead, is almost certain to use Anita's new forms. Nobody likes these forms except Anita, but it looks like they aren't going to change.

Better a stalemate than a surrender.

There is also agreement by both Anita and skeptics that this test cannot in any way provide evidence towards suggesting the existence of any 'ability'. So I don't see it is a huge problem to use the figures and assumptions I have made.

Right. Because she already believes she has this ability. Nobody else does. So when she does this study, she still believes it and we don't. Only now she can say that the skeptics failed to falsify her claim.

Whether she's delusional or a scammer, I cannot see how this is a good thing.

But of course I am open to suggestions or modifications.

First off, the form is not clear on how many time frames can be circled. It must be made clear that only the most recent can be circled and that the Extent relates to that time frame. Right now Florida voters would circle more than one Extent and time frame.

Second, define Extent. This is an example:
0 = No pain
1 = Mild pain
2 = Discomforting
3 = Distressing
4 = Intense
5 = Excruciating

See http://www.tipna.org/info/documents/ComparativePainScale.htm for more ideas.

Third, Anita has repeatedly emphasized the need for the pain or ailment to be current. My preference is to use only Now. However, I'm okay with Month. With this you will get a much smaller number of number of answers. Using your scale with a time frame of one month my answers drop from 37 down to 5.

Fourth, lets ask people her to complete the form but only report the number of eligible answers rather than the details. We can also ask family members to help out. This will at least give us a some baseline from which to work. We can then ask someone like Jeff Corey, "If we assume that on average people check X out of Y answers, then with a reasonable confidence how many matches would we expect from someone making totally random guesses?"

Jeff, of course, will point out all the flaws, but hopefully say, "Despite all these problems, this is what you should expect." We can then negotiate falsifiable from there.

 

[godofpie]

OK, assuming that dirtygreek is who he (for the sake of this post, I'll assume that he's a male and not a female) claims to be, I think that the responses to his post are counterproductive. Another member of the skeptics group is willing to give his take on VfF after meeting her in person. Granted, he missed her "reading" of Wayne, but he was there and met her and presumably, he'll be there in the future and he's probably one of the skeptics willing to help her with her study (however flawed).

Suddenly, he's attacked from all sides. People offer "helpful" edits to his post. Generally, it seems like this new potentially very helpful poster is very unwelcome.

Yes, he fired the first shot by questioning the personalities of some of the other posters. He did not attack any one poster. I suspect that as we've read through the 2000+ posts here that we've all thought at one point or another, "I wouldn't have said it that way," or "That person has issues" about someone other than VfF.

While there's been some back and forth. We mostly keep our big traps shut. dirtygreek made a very generalized statement that we could all probably agree with and finds that he's walked into a snakepit.

He can probably handle it. He probably doesn't need me to defend him. I'm not really defending him, I'm defending the idea that it's not necessarily a great policy to attack a new poster immediately, especially when he has more immediate knowledge and access to VfF than any of us do.

I assume he showed up to help, and I'm guessing that he has real help to offer.

Is he an expert on scam vs. delusion? Probably not. Has he read this entire thread? Who among us hasn't skipped at least a few posts (or portions of posts)? He's not perfect, but rather than attacking him for incomplete information or not backing his analysis with clear evidence, we could probably more easily get the information we want by politely asking.

Sorry. I just think his welcome to the forum has been unnecessarily unfriendly and counterproductive.

Ward

Thanks for sticking up for one of our new members. He is real and he was at our last meeting and he has not been treated very well so far in the forum. This thread has taken a nasty turn. IMO skepticism needs to be a very large tent. I welcome people like Anita. Below you will find a PM I sent to Anita yesterday and I have not heard back from her so I am going to post it here.

"Hi Anita-
I wanted to show you this before I posted it to the forum. Dr Carlson and I have been corresponding and he cc'd me on an email that he had sent to someone else. I have his permission to post the portion of his email that relates to his observations concerning Wayne. You are a nice person Anita and I don't want to hurt your feelings but you continue to point to your reading on Wayne as a success of your powers. I don't feel it was a success (for the reasons I stated in this post)http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...43#post4374843
and neither does Dr. Carlson. Below are his observations.
"I have had only a few meetings with Ms. Ikonen. Though I have dealt
>> with claimants in the past, most of them were referred to me by JREF,
>> and already more or less knew exactly what claim they were making. Ms.
>> Iknonen has not, thus far, made a specific testable claim. She asserts
>> that she can detect medical ailments by examining people, but in fact,
>> there is no ailment that she guarantees she will see with 100%, or even
>> high, efficiency. The one test we have performed with her involved her
>> looking at a person and attempting to detect any obvious medical
>> signals. She indicated, with considerable uncertainty, that there might
>> be a problem with the throat/thyroid or something like that, but marked
>> it with a low level of confidence. Eventually, the person told her she
>> was incorrect. He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she
>> could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so."
re posted with permission from Dr Eric Carlson

If you respect Dr Carlson as much as you say you do, I think that it is important to follow the scientific method and design a study that will help us help you prove or disprove your paranormal claim. We are more than happy to help you if you are sincere but I don't think it is fair to our group to ask them to participate in something that is guaranteed to produce questionable results at best.
On a brighter note, I just read that you are trying to resolve the "hit or miss" problem with Ashles. That's great! If you can come to some kind of agreement with him what a hit is and what a miss is I think we are heading in the right direction. Good Luck!


Cynicism does not equal Skepticism
And ya'll need to lay off of the personal attacks.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Correction to GodOfPie's link:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4374843#post4374843

 

[Kuko 4000]

I welcome people like Anita.

Yes, especially this part of the forum (General Skepticism and The Paranormal) should WELCOME people who think they have supernatural abilities, etc. We have to keep in mind that almost every person with such beliefs will sound unbelievable to our sceptical ears, we shouldn't be surprised by this. If we want to achieve something good here (bringing the E part of the JREF foundation closer to the forums) we should try our very best to keep our heads cool and be as friendly and constructive as possible, no matter what, even if the other person seems completely hopeless to us. Yeah, nothing new, but something we could always keep in our minds if we want to make this an even better place for everyone involved.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

The problem I have with the scammer theory is this: Where is the parallel? By that I mean how many scammers have started on skeptic websites to begin their scam? The evidence is that 99.99% of the scammers avoid skeptic websites altogether. Those rare few that have approached typically want to take the challenge, which is a great way to get publicity.

In the case of The Professor he played it almost perfectly, even offering skeptics $25K for helping him win. He wanted his "test" to be publicized (in a cemetery at midnight on Halloween in the Devil's Chair). Even if it didn't "work," so what? All he had to hope for was some noise on a tape, which he could then claim said something. People will hear what they want to hear. If there was no noise, then he could accuse the JREF of doctoring the tapes or simply say, as Uri Geller has many times, his abilities are unreliable and difficult under laboratory conditions.

He also pointed out on other sites how unfair and close minded the skeptics were. If somebody called him delusional, do you think he would take the time to address that symptom by symptom? No. He'd use it as evidence that the skeptics are afraid of him and refuse to even consider the paranormal. He turned negative responses into positive responses by spinning them to his audience. Anita has done none of that.

Anita's guestbook was up for almost a year before the Doctor and Psychic guy signed it. That was a day after she signed his guestbook. Looks to me like she stumbled across his site, and he took the opportunity to get a link back to his site. It's the only one we've seen. Pretty much every other link to her site is from skeptic sites.

If she's a scammer, she's making incredibly bad decisions left and right. If she's a scammer, she's 18 months into it without making a single dime off of it.

If you were a scammer, what would you do? First thing is I would promote myself to my target audience: those who believe in woo. I would link to all sorts of other woo sites and ask for links back. I might approach the skeptics, but only to the point where I could make them attack me (which we've done). I would cherry pick the attacks and post them on my site.

I would make a big deal out of how the IIG can't explain my powers and therefore can't test me despite 18 months of trying to devise a protocol. I wouldn't keep the negotiation open. I would point out that after 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 posts the skeptics at the JREF could not figure out how to test me and instead called me delusional. I would point how how they were wrong about me being from Sweden - not one person took me up on my offer to call me and hear my accent. I would point out how they insisted that I couldn't be taking a double-major even though it's clear on the UNC website that it's possible - what kind of skeptics can't do basic research?

I would make up much better "observations" than what is currently on her site. I would have passed the chemical identification test with flying colors - if they said I was lying, then why did they ask me to take the test in the first place? I would tout my success at the FACT meeting without linking back to a site the rips that reading to shreds - "Look, I even accurately read a skeptic on their home turf, right under the nose of the president of the group! They were too afraid to let anyone else test me."

I see none of that. If she's a scammer, either she's incredibly bad at it or she is the most patient and diabolical I've ever seen.

Kinda like you posted earlier, this is all our "opinions" based on experience. I admit that I have no real experience with anyone who is "clinically" delusional et al but I have dealt with a lot of the holy roller types and their beliefs and a few fruitcakes so I have some experience with those types..

If I were to hazard a guess based on the written word, I would say she is a "believer" in all things woo, wishes she had "the force" but is fully aware she doesnt. Part of her goal is to be counted and regarded as one who has "the power" by the masses.

I again discount delusion because truly "delusional" because in my limited experience, those with delusional beliefs structure their lives around them in all areas and it becomes a part of them. I dont see this with VFF.

>>>Where is the parallel? By that I mean how many scammers have started on skeptic websites to begin their scam?

well, we really dont know where the true "starting point" is but the fact she came here is evidence she wants publicity. She initiated the act and that indicates a premeditated purpose and intent. Now she demonstrates a pattern of deliberate lies and ducking. This is a test for "something"- just dont know what yet.

>>>If she's a scammer, she's making incredibly bad decisions left and right. If she's a scammer, she's 18 months into it without making a single dime off of it.

youth and inexperience but shes "smart enough" to test her strategy before she launches her career.

>>>I see none of that. If she's a scammer, either she's incredibly bad at it or she is the most patient and diabolical I've ever seen

I can see patient and I can give you a loose parallel. Its Roger Patterson and the famous PGF ( bigfoot film). He was a scammer who devoted YEARS to "searching" and wrote books before he got a suit and made what can be argued as a very controversial film. He made some decent money.

Was he delusional or "slick"

 

[desertgal]

I again discount delusion because truly "delusional" because in my limited experience, those with delusional beliefs structure their lives around them in all areas and it becomes a part of them.

In fairness, not always. It depends on the nature and the strength of the delusion(s). It's true that the delusion(s) can become a part of them, but many people with delusions can compartmentalize the delusion(s) so that it doesn't affect other areas of their lives. In the same way that a sadistic sociopath (i.e. Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway) can compartmentalize their homicidal urges to the extent that those closest to them are none the wiser.

I actually don't see that with Anita. I think her delusions are beginning to seep into many areas of her 'real' life. For example, she's made a few comments about using her 'ability' in her studies. During a simple visit to a tourist town, she turned what was likely an employee dressed in period clothing into a "ghost". Etc.

If I were to hazard a guess based on the written word, I would say she is a "believer" in all things woo, wishes she had "the force" but is fully aware she doesnt. Part of her goal is to be counted and regarded as one who has "the power" by the masses.

Very true. Course, as noted, that doesn't mean she isn't delusional-or, being delusional, isn't coming to the realization that her "ability" is non existent.

He then made a list of four ailments, asking if she could tell which of the four he had. She was unable to do so.

Four ailments? We are all under the impression, via Anita, that Wayne listed only ONE thing on his list - past surgery to the diaphragm, which she failed to detect. Interesting that she forgot to mention that it was multiple choice.

He is real and he was at our last meeting and he has not been treated very well so far in the forum.

Well, for that, I am sorry.

This thread has taken a nasty turn. IMO skepticism needs to be a very large tent.

True.

If I have been overly caustic towards Anita, I apologize. Partly due to exasperation, but also partly due to the hope that, if I reiterated what I see as the delusional pattern to her thinking enough, she might wake up and realize that, if twenty people are noting that same pattern, there might be something to it. No such luck.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Being a real scientist or having a real degree as a "woo" is VERY good for the business. I am sure Anita knows how to advertise her scientific background if she ever starts one. She is doing it enough already. To me it seems that she is just delusional about her abilities. This is where this forum can help a lot, I hope you guys and gals have the patience to stick with her until a proper claim and a test is agreed.

 

[Belz...]

There , fixed it for you ... Personal incredulity doesn't count for much here.

Since when can't a scammer be - soft spoken, not at all pushy, very genuinely nice and interesting ?

Endearing herself to the skeptical community could just be part of the set up; even though it may not be working for her in any way that we can comprehend.

While she is avoiding a legitimate test, she can make claims about how hard she is trying to work out a testing protocol with card carrying skeptics, and cry foul when things don't go her way .

Well, I'd think that most scammers would not waste time trying to convince skeptics. They usually go for those who already believe their abilities are real. Delusional people, however, "know" that their abilities are real so there is no reason to avoid skeptics.

 

[Moochie]

Furthering that, a lot of mass murdered have been said to be interesting and nice people.

Yes, I've read that Ted Bundy was a thoroughly nice, personable young man.


M.

 

[desertgal]

Yes, I've read that Ted Bundy was a thoroughly nice, personable young man.


M.

No, he just knew how to play one.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

She's back to being sweet since her actual test is no longer imminent. That aside, how do you rank her on her skills as a scammer? I know it's hard to judge since she hasn't actually scammed anybody yet, but you get the idea.

And we know this, how?


M.

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

Does all this mean that she may be a future scammer of gullible woos? Absolutely. Or she may just be a delusional gal looking for attention to perpetuate the delusion.

And the other ideas canvassed are, c) a psychological field study of some kind; and d) hoax.

I'm leaning toward the "woo entrepreneur" -- the "Amazing Anita," if you will.


M.