ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Anita Ikonen , VisionFromFeeling

Reply
Old 19th June 2010, 10:39 AM   #1
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Will we be seeing Anita Ikonen (VisionFromFeeling) again very soon?

Looks like we might all be seeing her at TAM8.

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/demonstration.html

Feel free to speculate,
Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 10:58 AM   #2
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,230
Quote:
The paranormal claim that I make is that I claim that when I look at a person I feel a landscape
Nothing paranormal about making a claim that she's making a claim.
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 01:16 PM   #3
Brattus
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
Nothing paranormal about making a claim that she's making a claim.
That's not a real quote is it? I mean no one really typed that and meant it to be taken seriously right?
Brattus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 01:18 PM   #4
edona7
Scholar
 
edona7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 78
Yes, it is a real quote. Second paragraph in the above linky.
Scary.
edona7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 02:09 PM   #5
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
 
LightinDarkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,583
Not again.

Quote:
The only consequence of it being a demonstration, not a test, is that as such a demonstration is unable to verify the claim but is still capable of falsifying the claim, yet if results of this demonstration are considered of a high enough accuracy or interesting by independent skeptics it may entitle the claim for another actual test of the claim.
As we all know, this is pure BS. A rigorous test was held by the IIG and debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities. The issue is settled. The only reason to continue going through this charade is that Anita wants attention. If it the standards involved in this demonstration are so low that the protocols are not rigorous enough to be deemed a test that means the results either way are meaningless.

Nothing productive can come of this. If she fails (again), it will mean nothing because the protocols were bad and will not falsify her already falsified abilities. If she succeeds, it will mean nothing but she will trumpet it a success as proof that she has her claimed abilities.

Anita has used the skeptic community to perform her act and has put on a three ring circus with her in the middle ring. We need to stop attending the show.

Last edited by LightinDarkness; 19th June 2010 at 02:29 PM.
LightinDarkness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 02:40 PM   #6
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
The only thing exceptional about Anita is her ability to manipulate seemingly rational minded skeptics into giving her the attention she craves. After being banned from here, she set about posting provocative comments on various blogs trying to get people to come to her discussion board. Nobody bit, and the only posts on her board are her replying to herself (rather sad, actually).

Now she announces yet again some undefined event - this time it's a demonstration rather than a survey, study, informal test or formal test - to be performed at an undefined time in front of an undefined audience, and somebody immediately jumped on this and posted speculation here. She's truly gifted in her ability to get attention.

It's pathetic. Let it go.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 03:39 PM   #7
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
If when she fails (again),
Excuse me, but I can't help myself
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 03:45 PM   #8
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
If it the standards involved in this demonstration are so low that the protocols are not rigorous enough to be deemed a test that means the results either way are meaningless.
That's what I've been saying for months.


Another thing I've been saying for months is this:
There's nothing special about Anita at all. There's nothing unusual in someone making an outrageous claim of paranormal abilities, agreeing to be tested and then refusing to admit, as promised, that failure means her claimed abilities don't exist. There's nothing special about such a claimant craving lots of attention.

Ho hum. Same old same old.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 03:49 PM   #9
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy View Post
The only thing exceptional about Anita is her ability to manipulate seemingly rational minded skeptics into giving her the attention she craves. After being banned from here, she set about posting provocative comments on various blogs trying to get people to come to her discussion board. Nobody bit, and the only posts on her board are her replying to herself (rather sad, actually).

Now she announces yet again some undefined event - this time it's a demonstration rather than a survey, study, informal test or formal test - to be performed at an undefined time in front of an undefined audience, and somebody immediately jumped on this and posted speculation here. She's truly gifted in her ability to get attention.

It's pathetic. Let it go.
I agree with everything you said here except the sentence I bolded. She's not exceptional even in garnering attention. Look at what the likes of Uri Geller achieved back in the days before the interwebs when you had to get on national TV to get any kind of widespread fame.

Anita's not even exceptional among these types of paranormal frauds.

What she shares with them is an utter lack of shame.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 03:58 PM   #10
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
A rigorous test was held by the IIG and debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities.
Believing that: (a) the IIG test was rigorous, and (b) that it debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities, is contradictory. Anita performed at the P = 5.67% level -- not quite statistically significant, but certainly good enough to justify another test if the first one was rigorous.
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 04:40 PM   #11
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Believing that: (a) the IIG test was rigorous, and (b) that it debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities, is contradictory. Anita performed at the P = 5.67% level -- not quite statistically significant, but certainly good enough to justify another test if the first one was rigorous.
Wrong. The IIG thing was pass/fail, and she agreed to those terms ahead of time. There was no partial credit for being only partly right (another way of saying "wrong"), or for showing her work (even though she tried that as well).

Her performance was a 100% failure to do what she claimed she was able to do.

And by the way, "not quite statistically significant" means "statistically insignificant", doesn't it?

(ETA: But to be clear, there was no question of statistics in this test. A success was defined as 100% correct, and a failure was defined as getting any wrong. This setup was appropriate for her claimed ability. Her ability wasn't about guessing or have a fuzzy idea of something. She claimed she could immediately see people's insides. In fact, her methodology of multiple looks and totalling up checks and pluses or whatever was not consistent with her claim. So we all know that she knows she's a fraud. She knew full well that she wasn't doing what she claimed she could do. Same with the breatherianism stuff. She is nothing special. Just a liar.)
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 19th June 2010 at 04:46 PM.
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 04:47 PM   #12
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
 
LightinDarkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,583
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Believing that: (a) the IIG test was rigorous, and (b) that it debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities, is contradictory. Anita performed at the P = 5.67% level -- not quite statistically significant, but certainly good enough to justify another test if the first one was rigorous.
When I was keeping count of this, at least half a dozen people have debunked you on this over 20+ times. The fact that you keep posting wrong information over and over again does not make it true. As its been pointed out (again), this was a pass/fail test. Anita failed the test, and she does not have the predictions claimed. She did not perform at that P level, and even if she did, its not statistically significant. I deal with statistics every day although I am not a guru in them, but enough that I have to teach it to undergraduates every year - and a data set showing a P level of 5.67% is not significant and would not be worthy of publication. Of course, the 5.67% number you came up with is quite wrong to begin with, so arguing whether its significant or not matters little since its the wrong number.
LightinDarkness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 05:18 PM   #13
shandyjan
Master Poster
 
shandyjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/W England
Posts: 2,122
Ah, does she see the landscape in the bit where the missing kidney should be?
__________________
Belief is the wound that knowledge heals. Ursula K. LeGuin's
A dog is for life, not just for xmas!
shandyjan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 05:30 PM   #14
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
She did not perform at that P level
Oh yes she did. Why don't you run the below analysis by a statistician, and see whether s/he agrees or disagrees:

I calculated the probabilities for all of the results that would be
inferior to Anita's result, which was getting two persons correct and
one location correct, and then subtracted the sum of those
probabilities from 1. So, I calculated the probabilities of (a)
getting none of the persons correct; (b) getting only one person
correct, with the location either incorrect or correct; or (c) getting
two persons correct, but with both locations incorrect.

For (a), it's a simple matter of multiplying 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which
equals 125/216. The reason for this is that the probability of getting
each person incorrect in each of the three trials is 5 out of 6. If
that occurs, no calculation is necessary for location.

For (b), it's a little trickier because the correct person could be
chosen in any of the three rounds, but we still don't need to do a
separate calculation for location because, whether the location is
correct or incorrect, the result (one person correct, but with the
incorrect location or one person and one location correct) would be
inferior to Anita's result. Thus, the overall probability of getting
one person correct is 3 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which equals 75/216.

For (c), it's trickier still because now the probability of getting
both locations incorrect after getting two of the three persons
correct must be accounted for. However, that's simply a matter of
factoring in the 1 in 4 probability of that happening. Again, there
are three ways of getting two persons correct (correct in Rounds 1 and
2, correct in Rounds 1 and 3, or correct in Rounds 2 and 3). Thus, the
probability getting two persons correct, but both locations incorrect,
is 3 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 1/4, which equals 15/864.

Summing 125/216 + 75/216 + 15/864 = 815/864. Subtracting that sum from
1 = 49/864, or 5.67%.
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 05:41 PM   #15
Senex
Philosopher
 
Senex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,274
Anita sent me a kind question through PM I couldn't respond to for some reason. I figured if I waited I'd get an opportunity to reply why I failed to reply. Check your settings!

I don't miss the drama at all but I believe she is sincere and gave my offer for the unfunded/unproduced/unthoughtout haunted motel documentary all the thought it deserved
Senex is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 06:56 PM   #16
bookitty
Philosopher
 
bookitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,732
Obviously someone feels that this will be of interest to the skeptics who attend TAM and they are probably right, the room will be packed. I, personally, wouldn't recommend that she put herself through this but it's not my choice. It's hers.

With a little luck, I'll be able to go to Vegas to catch the show and, more importantly, see Anita again. She's a sweet kid, it would be great to catch up with what's new in her life.
__________________
No more cupcakes for me, thanks.
bookitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 07:37 PM   #17
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Oh yes she did. Why don't you run the below analysis by a statistician, and see whether s/he agrees or disagrees:


<irrelevant nonsense>


Read this, Rodney. Please try and absorb it.


Quote:
It’s important to emphasize, again, what Anita was not doing. She was not sensing reduced kidney function; she was not reading auras or minds or communicating with spirit guides. She was looking for missing kidneys – three trials, 12 potential kidneys per trial. She “found” one.

It so happens that in Trial #3 the person she thought was missing a kidney was, in fact, missing a kidney – just not the correct one. Isn’t that still remarkable? Not really. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the demonstration WAS about picking entire persons and not individual kidneys and Anita had correctly chosen 2 out of 3. What are the odds of that? 1 in 13.5. Well within the realm of chance and certainly not significant in the context of the protocol as administered.

In the course of the demonstration Anita not only failed to detect the majority of missing kidneys just five feet away from her, but she also saw two kidneys where there were, in fact, none!

No matter how you slice it, Anita’s performance was simply not very impressive.


Source
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 07:50 PM   #18
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Originally Posted by LightinDarkness View Post
A rigorous test was held by the IIG and debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities.


Believing that: (a) the IIG test was rigorous, and (b) that it debunked Anita's claims to have paranormal abilities, is contradictory. Anita performed at the P = 5.67% level -- not quite statistically significant, but certainly good enough to justify another test if the first one was rigorous.


Read this, Rodney - it's from the IIG's own report:

Originally Posted by IIG (West)
In recent months (May 2010), the post-diction has increased in intensity. Encouraged by pundits (on both sides of the aisle) who did not carefully read the protocol and were otherwise misinformed about the rules, statistics and procedures – Anita has taken to simply lying about the claim she presented to the IIG in 2009. She is now saying:


Originally Posted by Anita Ikonen (May, 2010)
“Also the process by which I find missing kidneys starts by finding the sense of imbalance in a person, and to then narrow down to which side the imbalance is felt. It is a two-part process, whether you like it or not.

Source


". . . pundits (on both sides of the aisle) who did not carefully read the protocol and were otherwise misinformed about the rules, statistics and procedures . . ."

Sure wouldn't want to be in that group, would we, Rodney?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 19th June 2010 at 07:51 PM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 08:01 PM   #19
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Oh yes she did. Why don't you run the below analysis by a statistician, and see whether s/he agrees or disagrees:

I calculated the probabilities for all of the results that would be
inferior to Anita's result, which was getting two persons correct and
one location correct, and then subtracted the sum of those
probabilities from 1. So, I calculated the probabilities of (a)
getting none of the persons correct; (b) getting only one person
correct, with the location either incorrect or correct; or (c) getting
two persons correct, but with both locations incorrect.

For (a), it's a simple matter of multiplying 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which
equals 125/216. The reason for this is that the probability of getting
each person incorrect in each of the three trials is 5 out of 6. If
that occurs, no calculation is necessary for location.

For (b), it's a little trickier because the correct person could be
chosen in any of the three rounds, but we still don't need to do a
separate calculation for location because, whether the location is
correct or incorrect, the result (one person correct, but with the
incorrect location or one person and one location correct) would be
inferior to Anita's result. Thus, the overall probability of getting
one person correct is 3 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which equals 75/216.

For (c), it's trickier still because now the probability of getting
both locations incorrect after getting two of the three persons
correct must be accounted for. However, that's simply a matter of
factoring in the 1 in 4 probability of that happening. Again, there
are three ways of getting two persons correct (correct in Rounds 1 and
2, correct in Rounds 1 and 3, or correct in Rounds 2 and 3). Thus, the
probability getting two persons correct, but both locations incorrect,
is 3 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 1/4, which equals 15/864.

Summing 125/216 + 75/216 + 15/864 = 815/864. Subtracting that sum from
1 = 49/864, or 5.67%.
F.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 08:02 PM   #20
RossFW
Muse
 
RossFW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 896
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Oh yes she did. Why don't you run the below analysis by a statistician, and see whether s/he agrees or disagrees:

I calculated the probabilities for all of the results that would be
inferior to Anita's result, which was getting two persons correct and
one location correct, and then subtracted the sum of those
probabilities from 1. So, I calculated the probabilities of (a)
getting none of the persons correct; (b) getting only one person
correct, with the location either incorrect or correct; or (c) getting
two persons correct, but with both locations incorrect.

For (a), it's a simple matter of multiplying 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which
equals 125/216. The reason for this is that the probability of getting
each person incorrect in each of the three trials is 5 out of 6. If
that occurs, no calculation is necessary for location.

For (b), it's a little trickier because the correct person could be
chosen in any of the three rounds, but we still don't need to do a
separate calculation for location because, whether the location is
correct or incorrect, the result (one person correct, but with the
incorrect location or one person and one location correct) would be
inferior to Anita's result. Thus, the overall probability of getting
one person correct is 3 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which equals 75/216.

For (c), it's trickier still because now the probability of getting
both locations incorrect after getting two of the three persons
correct must be accounted for. However, that's simply a matter of
factoring in the 1 in 4 probability of that happening. Again, there
are three ways of getting two persons correct (correct in Rounds 1 and
2, correct in Rounds 1 and 3, or correct in Rounds 2 and 3). Thus, the
probability getting two persons correct, but both locations incorrect,
is 3 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 1/4, which equals 15/864.

Summing 125/216 + 75/216 + 15/864 = 815/864. Subtracting that sum from
1 = 49/864, or 5.67%.
Rodney,


What would be the statistical probability of a trained Radiologist detecting a missing Kidney using a fully servicable CT scanner?

VFF claimed her ability was analogous to this. If she was unable to match that level of accuracy, she was unable to do what she claimed to be able to do.

Achieving slightly more than guessing might be educated guessing, but it is still a complete failure to demonstrate the claimed ability.
RossFW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 08:48 PM   #21
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Looks like we might all be seeing her at TAM8.

http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/demonstration.html

Feel free to speculate,
Ward


From the above link:

Originally Posted by Anita Ikonen
The only consequence of it being a demonstration, not a test, is that as such a demonstration is unable to verify the claim but is still capable of falsifying the claim, yet if results of this demonstration are considered of a high enough accuracy or interesting by independent skeptics it may entitle the claim for another actual test of the claim.

my bold embiggening


Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg View Post
You mean the part where I say "And while you did not win, nobody's saying that you did, it is interesting that you did beat random chance." ?

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg View Post
I don't know about "fawning" and "hagiographic," but she was a good choice for a guest. I'm saying her results are not enough to get excited about, they're merely interesting.

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg View Post
If she chooses to spin what i said, that's her malfeasance. The context of that sentence was that "completely failing" would have meant getting zero right.

Told you so. Gosh, what a surprise.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

Last edited by Akhenaten; 19th June 2010 at 08:49 PM.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 08:52 PM   #22
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Told you so. Gosh, what a surprise.
Except, if she is indeed talking about doing a demonstration at TAM8, who do you think invited her?

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 08:55 PM   #23
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,674
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Except, if she is indeed talking about doing a demonstration at TAM8, who do you think invited her?

Ward


Connie Sonne?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 08:58 PM   #24
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Well, they are both psychic pscandinavians. They stick together, I hear.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 09:25 PM   #25
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,692
Could someone please explain Anita's attraction 'cause I just don't see it. And I'm attracted to blondes.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 09:26 PM   #26
Audible Click
The gap in the plot
 
Audible Click's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BFE
Posts: 3,634
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Well, they are both psychic pscandinavians. They stick together, I hear.


Ward
I hear it's to keep warm.
__________________
"Thank you, darling heart.
Love you." Baba
Australasian Skeptics Forum
Audible Click is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 10:29 PM   #27
LightinDarkness
Master Poster
 
LightinDarkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,583
Rodney well knows the problem with his statistics. He knows that, when you actually do it correctly (and don't count the correct person/wrong side case as a "partial hit" BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AN ACCURATE HIT ACCORDING TO THE ABILITY ANITA IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE), that the P value is no where near significant. When including only correct person/correct side as a hit, since that is the only case in which Anita accurately demonstrated the ability shes claimed, its simply guessing or educated guessing (body language reading) at BEST. He has been told this 25+ times by various people. Like Anita, he simply does not want to embrace the facts and would rather embrace the woo.

In Rodney's world, Anita claims that she can somehow use her MRI like vision to find kidneys but is inaccurate about which side, so finding the right person gets credit. In reality, Anita's claims of being a human MRI means that she can detect both the right person and right side of a missing kidney - as such, getting the right person but wrong side is not a hit.

Last edited by LightinDarkness; 19th June 2010 at 11:00 PM.
LightinDarkness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 10:34 PM   #28
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
But what if, when she was missing all those kidneys, she flipped a coin and it landed on heads 10 times in a row? Wouldn't that be a statistically significant result in the kidney test? Rodney, could you figure out the stats on that?

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2010, 11:58 PM   #29
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
Except, if she is indeed talking about doing a demonstration at TAM8, who do you think invited her?
What makes you think she's going to TAM other than the timing of the announcement?
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 12:22 AM   #30
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,226
Originally Posted by UncaYimmy View Post
What makes you think she's going to TAM other than the timing of the announcement?
The timing, the fact that she calls the testing organization a "credible skeptical organization," the fact that she foresees "no need for delay or cancellation," the fact that certain higher-ups at JREF are on record as saying they believed her results last year were "interesting."

The timing speaks for itself.

While I would not trust her to recognize a "credible testing organization," she has a history of seeking out groups like FACT, IIG and JREF which I think are all credible.

The "no delay" suggests that it's going to happen soon.

The attitude of some higher-ups has been discussed here quite a bit.

Nevertheless, it's pure speculation on my part. Maybe it's some other group. Maybe it's a group back in Sweden.

Also, I think that JREF was very happy to have Connie Sonne last year as one of the centerpieces of TAM7. It's only natural that they'd want something similar this year. They probably don't have any applicant ready to go in the pipeline, but they always know where they can find someone to show up to go organ hunting in front of an audience. And they know she'll dress to impress.

But once again, it's pure speculation.

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 01:15 AM   #31
Uncayimmy
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
The timing, the fact that she calls the testing organization a "credible skeptical organization," the fact that she foresees "no need for delay or cancellation," the fact that certain higher-ups at JREF are on record as saying they believed her results last year were "interesting."

The timing speaks for itself.
Sorry, but I think you're totally out of line with this rumor mongering. She first announced the new test back in May. She said it would take place in June 2010. You have no basis whatsoever to even be suggesting that she's doing it at TAM. ETA: It's in July.

She deliberately writes vague announcements hoping to get attention, and you took it hook, line and sinker. Well, at least the quiet lasted for a few months.

Last edited by Uncayimmy; 20th June 2010 at 02:13 AM.
Uncayimmy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 07:42 AM   #32
Rodney
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,942
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Read this, Rodney. Please try and absorb it.
I have read it and absorbed it, particularly this nugget: "The protocol Anita proposed called for her to simply identify the Subject who was missing a kidney. Right kidney or the left kidney was not mentioned."

So, it was the IIG that talked Anita into guessing which kidney was missing.

Then there is this rationalization:

"Since the demonstration some criticism has been aimed at the wording of the protocol: 'The Applicant claims to be able to detect which subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney, to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials.'

"To some the language is imprecise and, thus, vulnerable to challenge or mischievous misinterpretation. Was Anita being asked to identify who was missing a kidney, and then being asked to identify which kidney? This question is only of interest to someone trying to parse things so as to turn Anita’s selection in Trial #3 into a 'partial hit'. Never-the-less, we might have done more to prevent something like this, since the deliberate injection of post-test 'confusion' comes with the territory when testing psychics.

"In our defense, getting the grammar correct was a linguistic challenge."

I guess the IIG should have called on me to solve the "linguistic challenge." If the test was not supposed to be in two distinct parts, I would have proposed the following language:

"The Applicant claims to be able to detect the missing kidney in a group of six subjects, five of whom have the normal two kidneys, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials. In each trial, the Applicant must identify both the subject missing the kidney and the location of the missing kidney (left or right).
Rodney is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 09:03 AM   #33
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,143
The initials "NPD" come to mind. But it should be noted that I am not a trained psychologist.

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 09:19 AM   #34
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
Oh yes she did. Why don't you run the below analysis by a statistician, and see whether s/he agrees or disagrees:

I calculated the probabilities for all of the results that would be
inferior to Anita's result, which was getting two persons correct and
one location correct, and then subtracted the sum of those
probabilities from 1. So, I calculated the probabilities of (a)
getting none of the persons correct; (b) getting only one person
correct, with the location either incorrect or correct; or (c) getting
two persons correct, but with both locations incorrect.

For (a), it's a simple matter of multiplying 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which
equals 125/216. The reason for this is that the probability of getting
each person incorrect in each of the three trials is 5 out of 6. If
that occurs, no calculation is necessary for location.

For (b), it's a little trickier because the correct person could be
chosen in any of the three rounds, but we still don't need to do a
separate calculation for location because, whether the location is
correct or incorrect, the result (one person correct, but with the
incorrect location or one person and one location correct) would be
inferior to Anita's result. Thus, the overall probability of getting
one person correct is 3 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 5/6, which equals 75/216.

For (c), it's trickier still because now the probability of getting
both locations incorrect after getting two of the three persons
correct must be accounted for. However, that's simply a matter of
factoring in the 1 in 4 probability of that happening. Again, there
are three ways of getting two persons correct (correct in Rounds 1 and
2, correct in Rounds 1 and 3, or correct in Rounds 2 and 3). Thus, the
probability getting two persons correct, but both locations incorrect,
is 3 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 5/6 * 1/4, which equals 15/864.

Summing 125/216 + 75/216 + 15/864 = 815/864. Subtracting that sum from
1 = 49/864, or 5.67%.
Nonsense.

Rodney, do you know what Anita's claimed ability was? You seem to think she claimed an ability to have a vague and sometime fallible sense of whether or not someone is missing a kidney. It was nothing like that. Her claim was that she could immediately see people's insides and know with 100% accuracy whether or not they were missing a kidney.

You seem to want to pursue a claim she never made.

And do you know what the agreed upon standard of a success for this test was? If you want to do any statistics, the only thing that makes sense is to say that she was zero for one on the test. It was a 100% failure.

The test did indeed prove that her claim was false.

On a bit of a side note: I don't think technically that's "debunking" her claim--which is usually showing how some trick was done. In her case, there is nothing to debunk. She simply made a false claim, and the demonstration proves without a doubt that her claim was false.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 09:25 AM   #35
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,766
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post
I have read it and absorbed it, particularly this nugget: "The protocol Anita proposed called for her to simply identify the Subject who was missing a kidney. Right kidney or the left kidney was not mentioned."

So, it was the IIG that talked Anita into guessing which kidney was missing.

Then there is this rationalization:

"Since the demonstration some criticism has been aimed at the wording of the protocol: 'The Applicant claims to be able to detect which subject in a group of six Subjects is missing a kidney, to further identify which kidney (left or right) is missing in her selected Subject, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials.'

"To some the language is imprecise and, thus, vulnerable to challenge or mischievous misinterpretation. Was Anita being asked to identify who was missing a kidney, and then being asked to identify which kidney? This question is only of interest to someone trying to parse things so as to turn Anita’s selection in Trial #3 into a 'partial hit'. Never-the-less, we might have done more to prevent something like this, since the deliberate injection of post-test 'confusion' comes with the territory when testing psychics.

"In our defense, getting the grammar correct was a linguistic challenge."

I guess the IIG should have called on me to solve the "linguistic challenge." If the test was not supposed to be in two distinct parts, I would have proposed the following language:

"The Applicant claims to be able to detect the missing kidney in a group of six subjects, five of whom have the normal two kidneys, and to be able to do this with 100% accuracy in three consecutive trials. In each trial, the Applicant must identify both the subject missing the kidney and the location of the missing kidney (left or right).
This is just a bunch of bull, Rodney.

Anita repeatedly claimed the ability to see people's insides and immediately and infallibly see if someone was missing a kidney. She repeatedly claimed that she had never failed in her self-testing. (And many of us urged her to do more formal self-testing before she annoys anyone else with having to do it, but she was so certain she had enough evidence to believe her claim that she didn't need to.)

Heck, she claimed she once saw a diaphragm in a woman who walked down a hallway past the open door to the room she was in.

Everything in the protocol was consistent with demonstrating her claimed abilities. She claimed to be able to see these organs, so the business of left and right would be trivial if her claim were true.

She did not make a claim that she could somehow detect a missing kidney but not be able to detect which side it was on. She repeatedly claimed that when she looked, she could immediately see people's insides.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 10:31 AM   #36
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
 
Susan Gerbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,526
Please oh please don't start talking to Rodney about the odds. We have pages and pages of that already on other VfF threads!

Anita failed. Done.

Is the JREF that desperate for "entertainment" that they need to put someone with reality issues on stage for everyone to gawk at? The IIG already did a rigorous test with her and she FAILED. What is the JREF trying to say here? Have they lost faith in the IIG's testing capabilities?
__________________
Quit Complaining and Get Active!
formerly known as sgf8
Susan Gerbic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 11:03 AM   #37
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,457
Originally Posted by sgf8 View Post
Is the JREF that desperate for "entertainment" that they need to put someone with reality issues on stage for everyone to gawk at? The IIG already did a rigorous test with her and she FAILED. What is the JREF trying to say here? Have they lost faith in the IIG's testing capabilities?

There is nothing but the OP's speculation that this has anything to do with the JREF. See the TAM 8 page here for the actual events and schedule.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 11:32 AM   #38
alleracsum
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 70
The following statements made by Anita herself make it clear that her claim involved seeing individual kidneys in relation to their position in the body.

Anita describes how she "sees" internal organs and structures:
They are very specific and not vague nor open for interpretation afterwards. I reach my conclusions within a few minutes at most, and without any dialogue with the persons. I am very confident in what I perceive, even when it contradicts with my prior knowledge or assumptions regarding that person or of health in general, because I have "seen it".

Anita describes the time required to form the pertinent images:
Perceptions that come to me on their own, from more severe health problems, appear immediately. And in cases where I have to search for information it takes a while longer for the perceptions to form, since the vibrational information is not as strong. Typically it takes from "no time" to a few seconds. Sometimes I spend up to a minute forming images very carefully, if I picked up on a hint of a health problem and want to work on forming the entire perception of it. It really takes very little time.

Anita describes the level of detail she perceives:
The images of health problems appear in their most relevant angle and magnification that best describes the situation. .... I can observe images from several angles and several levels of magnification simultaneously.

Anita describes her sense of orientation:
My normal vision is never switched off. I am aware of the normal vision images, and the images perceived with this ability, as being two different categories of vision and they never get confused. I always know what visual perception was derived from normal vision, and what was derived with the ability that uses the sense of feeling to form images.

Fueled by her reception on the "Rational Alchemy" podcast, Anita realized some post-facto goal post shifting was in order. She expunged from her website numerous statements like those quoted above and substituted the following, quite different, description of her process:
Also the process by which I find missing kidneys starts by finding the sense of imbalance in a person, and to then narrow down to which side the imbalance is felt. It is a two-part process, whether you like it or not.
alleracsum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 11:46 AM   #39
Susan Gerbic
Graduate Poster
 
Susan Gerbic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,526
Quote:
There is nothing but the OP's speculation that this has anything to do with the JREF. See the TAM 8 page here for the actual events and schedule.
Lets just hope that remains the case.
__________________
Quit Complaining and Get Active!
formerly known as sgf8
Susan Gerbic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2010, 12:12 PM   #40
Maia
Graduate Poster
 
Maia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,259
Originally Posted by wardenclyffe View Post
But what if, when she was missing all those kidneys, she flipped a coin and it landed on heads 10 times in a row? Wouldn't that be a statistically significant result in the kidney test? Rodney, could you figure out the stats on that?

Ward

Actually, I think that this example sums up a major reason why Anita's results weren't interesting or significant. If Anita was in the middle of failing the kidney test and suddenly began levitating off the stage, that result would clearly be worth following up on even though it wasn't related to the original claim in any way. Something tells me we'd find hidden wires, but it would be more than worth getting to the bottom of whatever was actually going on. If Anita suddenly stopped the failed kidney test and announced Powerball numbers which won half an hour later, I really think that we'd all want to know how this trick was pulled off, even though it had nothing to do with the amazing paranormal powers she said she had. (I think that the way this particular stunt could be done was explained in a Monk episode...) But the results that Anita ended up with just weren't that statistically unusual even on their own. This is particularly true when you consider all of the issues with the setup of the test, and those cannot be ignored "just for the sake of argument" when analyzing those results.
__________________
Satan, aka Precious the Cat-- the Comic! Come and read at Stripgenerator!

Last edited by Maia; 20th June 2010 at 12:14 PM.
Maia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.