Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Hi all. What's this thread about then?
Vision From Feeling
- Thread starter VisionFromFeeling
- Start date
-
- Tags
- anita ikonen
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
Then you have no idea what "violence" means or you're using it to create sympathy. We are all concerned about your... er... state; but you don't seem willing to help yourself.
Belz...
Fiend God
Yeah but it reopens in March 2014.
Same old claims, different name.
Girl claims amazing ability.
Amazing ability has never been wrong.
Amazing ability has come by itself many times and can be consciously called upon at will.
Amazing ability could revolutionise world.
Claimant doesn't see it as anything special.
Girl also has several other amazing abilities.
Girl refuses to involve university as it would hamper her career.
Skeptics suggest testing.
63 pages of evasions, excuses, passive agressive behaviour, insults and pleas.
Girl tries a few tentative experiments.
Experiments go as badly as they could, or results are never provided.
Girl makes many more excuses.
Testing methods are suggested.
Girl rejects all test procedures by at least 3 different groups of skeptics.
Girl suggests her own procedures which are so bad nobody is interested in using them.
Some skeptics attempt to work even with girl's bad protocol. They are completely ignored.
Girl whines about how everyone is against her.
Girl 'rejects' 2 different groups of skeptics.
Girl tells 5 different Professors at her university as now she doesn't feel it will harm her career.
Professors all don't care.
Girl repeats claims, repeats excuses, repeats pleas and insults.
Everyone gets bored.
Thread dies.
After days of inactivity girl bumps thread to complain the skeptics are impatient.
No test happens.
Same old song, different words
Ah well, time to wait for the next claimant to burst on the scene with big claims, lots of words and zero evidence or intention to test for claimed ability. What do you reckon, within 4 months? Or sooner.
Hi Anita,
I've only been skimming the monster thread for a while since you decided that you would not be progressing with the cereals test I was interested in. Your stated reason for not doing so was so that you could concentrate on the Medical Diagnoses in preparation for the IIG test.
My thought at the time was that even if you did have more experience with medical diagnoses than detecting lactobacillus, the test subjects for medical diagnosis are hard to come by and fraught with ethical complications. The test subjects for a lactobacillus test can be easily purchased from the supermarket and when you’re done with them, you can eat them to get you money's worth. You're probably buying breakfast cereal anyway.
As such since the 12th December when you gave that answer, even just looking at 10 cups of cereal a week in a properly randomised double blind test, you’d have been able to have run ten such tests. 100 separate trials. You’d be very experienced by now. Maybe with practice you’d have been able to run through the ten trials without any of the exhaustion you’d previously complained about.
If you had by now figured out how to consistently score 90% in picking which of three covered cups had a lactobacillus enhanced cereal inside then that’s the test you’d be able to take public. Maybe you’d have developed a protocol where the cereal had been kept in the cups for a period of time before viewing, to allow the “vibration” to seep through. Maybe you’d have discovered that your success after wetting the cereals allowed you to carry on with the covers back on. If not then you’d have learnt which controls were stopping you from achieving your previously high scores and have learnt something about the probable methods your subconscious had been using to create the impression of a genuine power.
Have you had a similar level of progress pursuing your medical diagnosis claim?
I’ve skim read that you have developed a study protocol which I presume is in order to present the IIG with a list of conditions which you’re confident you can detect most of the time. As I understand it you’ve been arguing with sceptics here over the use of a five point scale rather than a definite yes/no for each condition. This five point scale would allow a chancer to say things like, well I’m getting a vague impression of a tired shoulder and a sore throat but it’s not worth mentioning. Thus if the test subject had neither of those conditions you could say “well I did say it was a vague impression not worth mentioning” whereas if either of those conditions materialised then you could count them as a hit. This is what cold reading experts call the rainbow ruse. Making a statement and immediately contradicting it, thus all bases are covered. E.g. I see you are a friendly person who can be the life and soul of a party but at times you can be introverted and shut others out. From the fact that these examples weren’t picked at random but from the controversy surrounding the only medical diagnosis I can see that you’ve attempted in these ten weeks I hope you can see the reason for the objections to a five point scale. A simple yes/no would be definitive whereas a five point scale lets others claim you were wrong whilst you claim you were right.
The only thing we’ve learnt from that reading is that you cannot reliably detect the lasting scars and contusions of major surgery. That must be disappointing. It doesn’t look good for the IIG test.
Am I correct that this is the only diagnosis you managed to perform whilst focusing your attentions on medical diagnosis rather than cereal? It’s the only one I can see on your observations made page. Do you agree that the results were controversial? Are you ready to change your claim regarding medical diagnosis from “Never Wrong” to “Only Wrong about things I’m not certain of” which rather raises the spectre of the No True Scotsman. How many of your previous hits could have been phrased with a built in exit route in case you'd been wrong. All we have to tell us one way or another is falliable memory which has been known to re-paint a more impressive picture very quickly and more so over time.
However if the only purpose of the study in question is so that you can submit to the IIG what conditions you feel you can reliably detect then I guess we can wait until the IIG’s matching protocol for a definitive answer. How much closer are you. Are there yet, any conditions you can tell them that you should be able to reliably detect?
It seems strange that asking for more data means that you can read less from the study than would otherwise be the case, however if you do manage to get study off the ground I will be happy to help with the statistics. Either with a yes/no or if you’ve got a large enough sample (over 50 subjects) I can cobble together a method for comparing your answers for one subject with the responses given by other people.
It'd be easier if the form simply said back pain rather than lower back pain, upper back pain and middle back pain. I'd assume that you'd want the analysis to be giving some credit to you if you perceived upper back pain for a test subject who reported middle back pain.
We can look at that. That said, since the form is so bloated I will be correcting for data mining effects.
However looking at the forms you intend to be using I wonder if you’ve questioned the wisdom of including vasectomy, pregnancy and breast implants in a study designed to highlight which conditions you hope to be able to detect for a subsequent matching protocol? I have to tell you, If there’s five men and five women to match to ten diagnosis including on diagnosis of vasectomy, I’ve doubled my odds on getting that diagnosis matched correctly. That ups the odds on the others through a knock on effect. I’m also pretty good at detecting pregnancy after a few months through non-supernatural means and breast enlargements too. Odds there are far more than doubled. I think it’s very unlikely that you’ll be seeing those conditions in the IIG test.
Yet since you’ve been focussing your efforts on this how much closer are you?
The study form is a controversial mess. I do hope that the new version is slimmed down and greatly simplified. When should we expect improvements?
You need to reserve a space via the parks department, have you managed that yet?
You need to recruit people to help administer the study, have you?
I've only been skimming the monster thread for a while since you decided that you would not be progressing with the cereals test I was interested in. Your stated reason for not doing so was so that you could concentrate on the Medical Diagnoses in preparation for the IIG test.
My thought at the time was that even if you did have more experience with medical diagnoses than detecting lactobacillus, the test subjects for medical diagnosis are hard to come by and fraught with ethical complications. The test subjects for a lactobacillus test can be easily purchased from the supermarket and when you’re done with them, you can eat them to get you money's worth. You're probably buying breakfast cereal anyway.
As such since the 12th December when you gave that answer, even just looking at 10 cups of cereal a week in a properly randomised double blind test, you’d have been able to have run ten such tests. 100 separate trials. You’d be very experienced by now. Maybe with practice you’d have been able to run through the ten trials without any of the exhaustion you’d previously complained about.
If you had by now figured out how to consistently score 90% in picking which of three covered cups had a lactobacillus enhanced cereal inside then that’s the test you’d be able to take public. Maybe you’d have developed a protocol where the cereal had been kept in the cups for a period of time before viewing, to allow the “vibration” to seep through. Maybe you’d have discovered that your success after wetting the cereals allowed you to carry on with the covers back on. If not then you’d have learnt which controls were stopping you from achieving your previously high scores and have learnt something about the probable methods your subconscious had been using to create the impression of a genuine power.
Have you had a similar level of progress pursuing your medical diagnosis claim?
I’ve skim read that you have developed a study protocol which I presume is in order to present the IIG with a list of conditions which you’re confident you can detect most of the time. As I understand it you’ve been arguing with sceptics here over the use of a five point scale rather than a definite yes/no for each condition. This five point scale would allow a chancer to say things like, well I’m getting a vague impression of a tired shoulder and a sore throat but it’s not worth mentioning. Thus if the test subject had neither of those conditions you could say “well I did say it was a vague impression not worth mentioning” whereas if either of those conditions materialised then you could count them as a hit. This is what cold reading experts call the rainbow ruse. Making a statement and immediately contradicting it, thus all bases are covered. E.g. I see you are a friendly person who can be the life and soul of a party but at times you can be introverted and shut others out. From the fact that these examples weren’t picked at random but from the controversy surrounding the only medical diagnosis I can see that you’ve attempted in these ten weeks I hope you can see the reason for the objections to a five point scale. A simple yes/no would be definitive whereas a five point scale lets others claim you were wrong whilst you claim you were right.
The only thing we’ve learnt from that reading is that you cannot reliably detect the lasting scars and contusions of major surgery. That must be disappointing. It doesn’t look good for the IIG test.
Am I correct that this is the only diagnosis you managed to perform whilst focusing your attentions on medical diagnosis rather than cereal? It’s the only one I can see on your observations made page. Do you agree that the results were controversial? Are you ready to change your claim regarding medical diagnosis from “Never Wrong” to “Only Wrong about things I’m not certain of” which rather raises the spectre of the No True Scotsman. How many of your previous hits could have been phrased with a built in exit route in case you'd been wrong. All we have to tell us one way or another is falliable memory which has been known to re-paint a more impressive picture very quickly and more so over time.
However if the only purpose of the study in question is so that you can submit to the IIG what conditions you feel you can reliably detect then I guess we can wait until the IIG’s matching protocol for a definitive answer. How much closer are you. Are there yet, any conditions you can tell them that you should be able to reliably detect?
It seems strange that asking for more data means that you can read less from the study than would otherwise be the case, however if you do manage to get study off the ground I will be happy to help with the statistics. Either with a yes/no or if you’ve got a large enough sample (over 50 subjects) I can cobble together a method for comparing your answers for one subject with the responses given by other people.
It'd be easier if the form simply said back pain rather than lower back pain, upper back pain and middle back pain. I'd assume that you'd want the analysis to be giving some credit to you if you perceived upper back pain for a test subject who reported middle back pain.
We can look at that. That said, since the form is so bloated I will be correcting for data mining effects.
However looking at the forms you intend to be using I wonder if you’ve questioned the wisdom of including vasectomy, pregnancy and breast implants in a study designed to highlight which conditions you hope to be able to detect for a subsequent matching protocol? I have to tell you, If there’s five men and five women to match to ten diagnosis including on diagnosis of vasectomy, I’ve doubled my odds on getting that diagnosis matched correctly. That ups the odds on the others through a knock on effect. I’m also pretty good at detecting pregnancy after a few months through non-supernatural means and breast enlargements too. Odds there are far more than doubled. I think it’s very unlikely that you’ll be seeing those conditions in the IIG test.
Yet since you’ve been focussing your efforts on this how much closer are you?
The study form is a controversial mess. I do hope that the new version is slimmed down and greatly simplified. When should we expect improvements?
You need to reserve a space via the parks department, have you managed that yet?
You need to recruit people to help administer the study, have you?
Anyone remember when she could do these things:
So at one point she could draw on this abilty at will and identify tissue samples. (And identify chemicals by looking at their molecules)
More abilities seemingly somehow lost over the course of this thread.
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying human tiss... nah, never mind. I think we already know.
(Bolding mine)
So at one point she could draw on this abilty at will and identify tissue samples. (And identify chemicals by looking at their molecules)
More abilities seemingly somehow lost over the course of this thread.
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying human tiss... nah, never mind. I think we already know.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Anita:
I haven't read this thread either, so I'm not really clear on what it is you are trying to claim. Can you detect injuries that people have suffered in the past, or is your ability limited to current conditions? I had a fairly horrific accident in my 20s; can you tell me in general (or specific) terms what injury(ies) I suffered?
Thanks for clearing this up.
I haven't read this thread either, so I'm not really clear on what it is you are trying to claim. Can you detect injuries that people have suffered in the past, or is your ability limited to current conditions? I had a fairly horrific accident in my 20s; can you tell me in general (or specific) terms what injury(ies) I suffered?
Thanks for clearing this up.
Some more amusing claims back from page one of this thread:
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying whether a subject had eaten a meal of... nah, never mind. I think we already know.
Even right at the start she refused to commit to any particular conditions. Here is a random list which Anita provides no indication of whether these are ailments she can actually identify or not.
A casual reader might think she is listing ailments she can identify but in fact she is specifically listing these simply as examples of things that are undetectable externally. She is careful not to claim she can actually identify any of these.
If not, how curious. Doesn't she want to pass the upcoming Test?
And, as mentioned by Oceot above, maybe she would improve in the clear cut tests (chemical identification, lactobacillus, crystals, tissue identification etc.) to a level she could test at.
Since she improves with practice.
Of course that would mean carrying out tests in which Anita produces less than perfect results. And we know what hapens in such cases.
Hello Mr File Drawer.
Actually no. We spent another 63 pages trying to specify that. To no avail.
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying when people need to go to... nah, never mind. I think we already know.
Boy that would be easy to test.
I wonder what she would say if it were suggested her test involve identifying whether a subject had eaten a meal of... nah, never mind. I think we already know.
Interesting use of lanuage there.
Even right at the start she refused to commit to any particular conditions. Here is a random list which Anita provides no indication of whether these are ailments she can actually identify or not.
A casual reader might think she is listing ailments she can identify but in fact she is specifically listing these simply as examples of things that are undetectable externally. She is careful not to claim she can actually identify any of these.
She could list every ailment known to man there for all the information it is really providing.
Again, interesting. Has she been testing her ability recently?
If not, how curious. Doesn't she want to pass the upcoming Test?
And, as mentioned by Oceot above, maybe she would improve in the clear cut tests (chemical identification, lactobacillus, crystals, tissue identification etc.) to a level she could test at.
Since she improves with practice.
Of course that would mean carrying out tests in which Anita produces less than perfect results. And we know what hapens in such cases.
Hello Mr File Drawer.
Anita doesn't know. Anita's upcoming study is designed to find out more about her ability.
Despite the absolute confidence she had when entering this thread that she could, at will, look into a person's body to an atomic level, now it seems she doesn't know what she is claiming she can identify.
Essentially if she guesses right it is a hit, if she guesses wrong it was too weak a guess to be counted as a miss, and if she misses something completely it also isn't to be counted.
In 63 pages she has refused to specify what actual ailments, conditions or characteristics she is able to reliably identify, or under what conditions.
Even whether she has to be facing the subject has changed throughout the course of this thread.
And let's not forget:
Where did this amazing, always-on ability disappear to?
She has been in rooms full of skeptics at least twice so far!
But... no ability.
She has had Pup's tablets in her room for weeks now.
But... no ability.
How can she posibly pretend this is consistent with later posts in the thread?
Where did this amazing, always-on ability disappear to?
She has been in rooms full of skeptics at least twice so far!
But... no ability.
She has had Pup's tablets in her room for weeks now.
But... no ability.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Anita doesn't know. Anita's upcoming study is designed to find out more about her ability.
Despite the absolute confidence she had when entering this thread that she could, at will, look into a person's body to an atomic level, now it seems she doesn't know what she is claiming she can identify.
Essentially if she guesses right it is a hit, if she guesses wrong it was too weak a guess to be counted as a miss, and if she misses something completely it also isn't to be counted.
In 63 pages she has refused to specify what actual ailments, conditions or characteristics she is able to reliably identify, or under what conditions.
Even whether she has to be facing the subject has changed throughout the course of this thread.
Ah. I see. Well, in that case, I'll go get some popcorn.
All joking aside, ma'am, but the only thing that would satisfy my rapidly fading interest in this thread, and in you, is some indisputable evidence that you, indeed, have what you refer to as "the ability." This evidence would need to be from multiple sources, and corroborated by several unimpeachable witnesses with well established reputations in the world of science.
Until you are able to point me to such evidence, all this talk is just so much chin-wagging. Nothing wrong with a bit of a natter, but up to now that is all that is happening.
When you have successfully established, with irrefutable evidence, that an "ability" exists, then, and only then, will we (you and I, because I can only speak for myself) have something meaningful to discuss.
Cheers,
M.
Yeah, I noticed that too, and almost made a post yesterday to send it to the top of the page again. Then I had an epiphany -- the thread was meant to die a natural death!
So I let a sleeping dog lie.
Maybe this will become another "Lazarus" thread...
M.
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
Yeah, I noticed that too, and almost made a post yesterday to send it to the top of the page again. Then I had an epiphany -- the thread was meant to die a natural death!
So I let a sleeping dog lie.
Maybe this will become another "Lazarus" thread...
M.
It could simply be the first test of the "ability" The "vibrational patterns" of the thread were read and she realized it was near death.
You think she's not going to give herself full marks if she diagnoses someone with middle back pain and they put down lower back pain?
She'd give herself full marks if she diagnosed back pain and they had athlete's foot.
- Status