I think I have a pretty good idea of how this Anita's VisionFromFeeling process works. I'll try to explain.

The Perception

The perceptions she describes seem to happen to her all the time. She described in great detail how she perceives me when I'm chatting with her. She had a perception that my wife was in the room. She was looking at electron microcope pictures and began to feel strange. She looked a cansister of nitrogen and saw a color. She types a term paper and senses colors and whether words are soft or hard.

If you look at she how describes a reading, it's not just the "sick" parts that stick out to her like she describes. She senses all sorts of body parts that she considers perfectly normal. She senses pain or tiredness. She senses scar tissue and diseased organs. She feels like parts are missing. A woman walks by and she senses a diaphragm or cysts.

Anita, this is not normal. It might seem that way to you because you live with it, but I'm telling you with 100% certainty that people don't get these sensations at anywhere near the rate you do. Most of us don't ever get them at all. Whatever it is that is causing this (no, it's not synesthesia), it's something that should concern you. You should seek medical help.

Anyway, it seems like she is constantly bombarded with all sorts of sensations, and I don't doubt that many of them are automatic. I do think she latches on to them and fleshes them out. That's her fantasy prone personality at work. Again, this is not normal. We all experience things like a chill or a sudden "feeling" about something, but most of us don't enhance it. We might wonder about the cause, but that's normal. She takes these perceptions and runs with them like they have special meaning.

Confirmation Bias

After she concocts the fantasy around a perception, she looks to confirm it rationally. She has so many of these perceptions that she's bound to get some right. What's become abundantly clear is that she gets a large number of them wrong and ignores them. This is classic confirmation bias.

In her "study" two of the three controls outperformed her, but she dismisses that. In her Study on Induced Information she did no better than chance, but she dismisses that. When tests don't go her way (chemical identification, crushed pills, lactobacillus, reading photos), she dismisses or stops them.

In her readings with F-A-C-T members she ignored the misses or tried to turn them into hits. She hedged her bets by mentioning things that were "minor" so she could claim victory if they turned out to be right or dismiss them if they were wrong. Her telling of the readings differs from what others reported.

The result is she has a list of things she thinks are important enough to research. Thing is, taken as a whole, there's nothing there. It's like playing poker and only remembering your great hands. What are the odds of somebody getting 5 hands with straight flushes? We know the odds of one are pretty slim, right? That means 5 is, like, crazy, dude! Well, if you play enough hands, you'll have dozens or even hundreds of straight flushes.

Guessing that someone is missing a kidney is probably 300 to 1. Well, if you're always guessing stuff, you're bound to get one longshot now and again. She's just ignoring all of the other 300-1 guesses she got wrong and thinking that she did something really special this one time.

Argument From Ignorance

The final ingredient in this formula is that when Anita does confirm something, she thinks there is no way she could have known that. We have explained to her that the human brain is magnificent at making connections. Cold readers do this all the time. Some do it unintentionally and believe they are pyschic. People who get these readings often fail to see how the clues they gave to the reader could have resulted in an educated and correct guess.

There have been very few things that Anita has said she "got right" that would make me raise an eyebrow. In almost every case they are things that could easily be determined based on observation, deduction, induction, and general knowledge. Just today she claimed that she had no way of knowing that oxcycodone would be a painkiller. Anita worked for three years in a nursing home. Do you think none of the patients were on it or codeine? It's one of the most common painkillers out there. It's been around since 1916.

We all "know" things that sometimes require extra thought to figure out how we know it. There's nothing mysterious about it. Humans are perceptive creatures that observe the world and make all sorts of connections. How is that we can so often tell when a movie is using special effects? Somehow we are able to detect the most minor differences in say the trajectory of a ball to say, "No, he didn't really throw it that far - that was digital trickery." Could we prove it mathematically? No. We just know just like we "know" many things without consciously being able to recall or explain exactly how we know. Some, like myself, enjoy trying to figure out how we know.

Anita, unfortunately, just refers back to step 1 - the fantasy perception. Why? I think she wants to be special and wants the perceptions to have meaning. Otherwise, she's just an ordinary person with an overactive imagination that might be mental illness.

Conclusion

Believe it or not, I can fully understand why she wants to take the test. I also know that if any of the rest of us experienced what she experiences, we would have formed rational explanations long ago. What's sad is that the test won't teach her anything. She'll find a way to dismiss it like she does all of her other failures. I hope I'm wrong.

The problem she has, though, is the process. Until such time as she realizes how foolish she was to go down this path, she will not have learned a thing.

Anita, this is not normal. It might seem that way to you because you live with it, but I'm telling you with 100% certainty that people don't get these sensations at anywhere near the rate you do. Most of us don't ever get them at all. Whatever it is that is causing this (no, it's not synesthesia), it's something that should concern you. You should seek medical help.

I am not concerned since as I have already explained the perceptions are just  like my synesthesia and they do not disturb me.

Anyway, it seems like she is constantly bombarded with all sorts of sensations, and I don't doubt that many of them are automatic. I do think she latches on to them and fleshes them out. That's her fantasy prone personality at work. Again, this is not normal. We all experience things like a chill or a sudden "feeling" about something, but most of us don't enhance it. We might wonder about the cause, but that's normal. She takes these perceptions and runs with them like they have special meaning.

Actually, no.

After she concocts the fantasy around a perception, she looks to confirm it rationally. She has so many of these perceptions that she's bound to get some right. What's become abundantly clear is that she gets a large number of them wrong and ignores them. This is classic confirmation bias.

I don't see how that would explain accurate perceptions of things that I should not have been able to know? I have only once perceived that a kidney would be missing, and that time it was correct. We'll see what the test reveals.

In her "study" two of the three controls outperformed her, but she dismisses that. In her Study on Induced Information she did no better than chance, but she dismisses that. When tests don't go her way (chemical identification, crushed pills, lactobacillus, reading photos), she dismisses or stops them.

Most/all of the health information that was involved in the study was such that could be guessed by external symptoms. It was not like there were missing kidneys and appendectomies involved. The study on induced information was where I was deliberately testing the boundaries of what the perceptions can do, to establish the best possible test conditions that I can perform under for a test. I deliberately chose test conditions that I thought I could not do well under, just in case I could do well enough to have good screens etc. on a test.

In her readings with F-A-C-T members she ignored the misses or tried to turn them into hits. She hedged her bets by mentioning things that were "minor" so she could claim victory if they turned out to be right or dismiss them if they were wrong. Her telling of the readings differs from what others reported.

That is incorrect. I did really well in the readings with FACT Skeptics.

Guessing that someone is missing a kidney is probably 300 to 1. Well, if you're always guessing stuff, you're bound to get one longshot now and again. She's just ignoring all of the other 300-1 guesses she got wrong and thinking that she did something really special this one time.

I did not guess that the kidney was missing, it was based on one of the clearest strongest perceptions I have ever had. I don't guess stuff, I base my medical perceptions on things that I actually see and feel.

The final ingredient in this formula is that when Anita does confirm something, she thinks there is no way she could have known that. We have explained to her that the human brain is magnificent at making connections. Cold readers do this all the time. Some do it unintentionally and believe they are pyschic. People who get these readings often fail to see how the clues they gave to the reader could have resulted in an educated and correct guess.

There is no way I could have known several of the things that I knew. But I've already acknowledged the possibility that I'd be unintentionally reading external symptoms.

There have been very few things that Anita has said she "got right" that would make me raise an eyebrow. In almost every case they are things that could easily be determined based on observation, deduction, induction, and general knowledge. Just today she claimed that she had no way of knowing that oxcycodone would be a painkiller. Anita worked for three years in a nursing home. Do you think none of the patients were on it or codeine? It's one of the most common painkillers out there. It's been around since 1916.

Then how come my logic, which is based on all of my knowledge, did not know it?  

Anita, unfortunately, just refers back to step 1 - the fantasy perception. Why? I think she wants to be special and wants the perceptions to have meaning. Otherwise, she's just an ordinary person with an overactive imagination that might be mental illness.

No. What you don't understand is that I detected that a kidney was missing. It was not a guess, it was not some subtle hunch, it was one of my strongest medical perceptions to date. And regardless of the accuracy that will be revealed by the IIG test, this is not mental illness.

Believe it or not, I can fully understand why she wants to take the test. I also know that if any of the rest of us experienced what she experiences, we would have formed rational explanations long ago. What's sad is that the test won't teach her anything. She'll find a way to dismiss it like she does all of her other failures. I hope I'm wrong.

You have not experienced the medical perceptions, you have only heard someone talking about them. If you had first-hand experience you might feel differently about it. The test will teach me whether there is accuracy beyond chance and whether I am accurately detecting health information that should not be accessible to ordinary senses of perception.

The problem she has, though, is the process. Until such time as she realizes how foolish she was to go down this path, she will not have learned a thing.

It has not been foolish. It is an interesting paranormal claim.

She sees/experiences things in a completely mundane fashion, but when describing it to someone else, she adds magic. Afterward she believes whatever she has added. Without a listener or the anticipation of an audience, she does not have the experience. Otherwise she would be crippled by the amount of extra, useless and overlapping information. 

Actually, I have synesthesia and see colors and shapes. When I describe the perceptions I am describing them exactly as they are and I am not adding anything. And I don't believe that the perceptions are real unless they are confirmed accurate. I have the perceptions when I am on my own as well, and I notice them more when I am on my own.

We all do this to some degree. When I am describing a tree calf binding (one of my favorites), I am poetic, I rhapsodize, I can "see" the history of this book from cow to modern shelf. Books are my passion, this poetry serves to explain my obsession. Vff is her own obsession.

Actually, I describe the perceptions exactly as they are. Sorry about that.
 

Why is she here, talking to skeptics? Why doesn't she go to other boards that accept ESP and magic uncritically? Because there she would not be special. What's the fun of saying "I healed someone!" when the answer is "OMG!!!! So did I!" By telling her that her "visions" are nonsense, we are re-affirming that she is special.
 

I begun talking with Skeptics to get help with the test protocol, and thanks to that I have now already submitted an acceptable test protocol to the IIG. Now I am just here to defend myself and to try to clarify the misunderstandings and accusations. The reason you wonder why I talk to Skeptics and not to other claimants is because unfortunately, I am a Skeptic and a science student. Sorry about that.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 27 Sep 2009 04:52 PM
We're really just disagreeing over the point at which the automatic perceptions end and her fantasies start. I think a lot of times what happens is that her fantasy rewrites how the initial perception started. Sometimes I think she invents the initial perception after the fact - it's all part of the fantasy prone personality. Her narcissistic behavior only makes matters worse.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that or I would not have an investigation. I describe the perceptions exactly as they are and I do not change my descriptions afterwards. They are not invented, they describe pictures and feelings I have. And I am not narcissistic simply because I defend myself when you say things about me that are not true.

Posted By VisionFromFeeling on 28 Sep 2009 05:49 PM

Then how come my logic, which is based on all of my knowledge, did not know it?

The woman has perserverance, that's for damn sure. She keeps repeating the same nonsense as if this time we skeptics will finally understand. We do understand, Anita. We understand very well that you are just like countless wishful thinkers who have come before, only you're more stubborn. We completely understand what you consider to be be logic. We find it ridiculous.

 

* When negotiating a protocol, you explicity rejected detecting a missing kidney.

* You met Dr. Carlson on multiple occasions and did not detect a missing kidney even though you tell us that serious medical issues come to you involuntarily. In fact you have just recently claimed that with while in a classroom you glimpsed a woman walking by the door and detected a diaphragm.

* After this strongest reading ever, you still conducted a study where you did worse than two of three controls.  

* You planned a second study and even attempted to execute it on your own.

* Finally, several months after your strongest perception ever (and after doing other studies), you conclude that this *one* detection of a missing kidney is suddenly the holy grail for testing all of your medical claims. You've never repeated this feat.

Posted By VisionFromFeeling on 30 Sep 2009 11:31 PM

 I am simply insisting that you show some tolerance toward the fact that I believe that I detected the missing kidney, and that you not try to convince me of otherwise.